CHAP. I. How Protestancy begunne, and came into England.

IN the yeare 1516. there was no other Religion in our parts of the world ac­knowledged Catholick, and Apostolick, but that which Protestants are now plea­sed to call Popery. In the yeare 1517. Leo the X. Bishop of Rome (following the [...]cample of other Popes) granted and published Indulgen­ [...]s to all such as voluntarily contributed towards the war [...]gainst the Turke; who at that time was growne formi­ [...]able, and threatned all Christendome, having added Syria [...]d Egipt to the Otteman Empire.

2 The Archbishop of Mentz (to whom the Pope com­ [...]itted the businesse of Indulgences in Germany) appoin­ted [Page 2]one Iohn Tetzel a Dominican Friar, to preach in the publishing of them, notwithstanding that for a long time before, this office had beene given to the Augustin Friars. The preferment of Tetzel was ill taken by Martin Luther, who being an Augustin Friar, and a famous Preacher, ex­pected himselfe should have beene the man named to preach, and publish the Indulgences; but seeing his hopes frustrated, he resolved to write as much against Indulgen­ces and the Pope, as he had prepared to preach in favour of both.

3 Therefore taking occasion of some abuses (which are unavoydable in things that passe through many hands) he printed certaine Conclusions, and Libells against Indul­gences. These were condemned, and burnt as hereticall by Iohn Tetzel, Luthers Competitor, who at the same time exercised the office of Inquisitor in Germany. This fire did so warme Luther, and added such flames to his hot dis­position, that most parts of Europe felt the smart of it. For, being once engaged, and enraged by Tetzels Declara­tion against him, he would not recant his first error, but added others by denying Purgatory, the Popes authoritie, merit, necessitie of good workes &c.

4 Amongst others who writ against Luthers novel­ties, one was Henry the VIII. King of England, compo­sing a learned Booke in defence of the seaven Sacraments, the Popes supremacy, and his spirituall jurisdiction over all Christendome: this Booke moved the Pope to adde to Henry the VIII. titles, that of Defender of the Faith; which had beene the most glorious of all his titles, if he had not so violently opposed afterwards the Popes prima­cy, which he then so piously maintained against Luther. But being weary of his wife Queene Catharine, despairing to have issue male by her, and enamoured of Anne Builen, because the Pope refused to declare his marriage with Queene Catharine invalid, he made himselfe Pope of En­gland, challenging all spirituall jurisdiction within his owne Kingdomes, and by Act of Parliament made it trea­son to acknow ledge any spirituall jurisdiction of the Pope in his Dominions, himselfe being proclaimed spirituall Head of the English Church. This was the occasion, and beginning of the pretended Reformation. Henry the VIII. notwithstanding did stick to the old Religion in all points, [Page 3]the Popes primacy onely excepted; because he thought no other of the new Religion was necessary to marry Anne Bullen, and to enrich himselfe by the spoile of Monaste­ries. He persecuted all other novelties, and herefies in such a degree, that though many crept into England in his reigne, yet very few durst professe them, because as many as did, were burnt by his command.

5 To King Henry the VIII. Sect. 2 succeeded his sonne Edward the VI. a child of 9. years old; his unkle the Earle of Hartford was made Protector both of the King, and King­dome; he was inclined to Zuinglius his heresie. Twenty dayes had scarse passed after his Protectorship, but his fin­gars did so eagerly itch to be doing, and tampering about innovation in Religion, Horinshed, Stow, and others an. 1547. as upon the sixth of March next following, he sent away Commissioners into all parts of the Realme, to pull do [...]ne Images, and other Ecclesiasti­call ornaments. He also invited out of Germany divers Sectaries of what Religion soever, but especially he desr­red to have Apostata Friars, that had tyed themselves to Sisters; assuring himselfe that they would be most ply­able to his purpose. And so there came into England Mar­tin Bucer a Dominican Friar, who had beene an earnest Lu­theran; Peter Martyr a Cannon Regular, that inclined to Zuinglius his opinions, but yet came with great indifferen­cy to preach, and teach what he should be appointed; as afterwards appeared, being a Lector in the University of Oxford, when the Parliament in London was debating what opinion the Kingdome should followe concerning the Reall presence: Peter Martyr kept all his Schollers in suspence, untill newes came of the Parliaments resolution, to which he accommodated himselfe: for, having detai­ned his Schollers with tedious glosses upon the words precedent to This is my body, not to declare his sense of them before he understood the sense of the Parliament, which having received by the Post, to be interpreted in a [...]gurative, not reall way, he was presently inspired, that this was the cleare sense of the Scaipture, and wondered now any could be so blind as not to see a thing so mani­ [...]est Bernard [...]chinus was the third, who had beene a Ca­ [...]ecl [...]in, but being weary of that austere life, tooke a wo­man, Annal. Cap. 1543. and writ a Booke in defence of having two wives at [...] Some say he died a Jew, but the Annalls of the [Page 4]Capuchins testifie, that he repented, and died a Cath [...] lick.

6 These three Apostles of the Reformation were d [...] ­stributed into three principall fountaines of the Land, Lon­don, Oxford, and Cambridge. With these joyned Coverda [...] an Augustin Friar, Bale a Carmelite, and other Apostates who did so vary in their Doctrine, and Religions which they preached to the people, that all was in confusion; i [...] so much that the Protector writ to Cranmer, and Ridley that they should make hast to end the common Servic [...] booke, or of Common prayer, Doctrine, and Rites, which they had begunne.

7 But from hence arose a great Controversy; for tha [...] Bucer would have one thing, Peter Martyr another, Ochin [...] a third. Iohn Bale, and Miles Coverdale would saine put i [...] their opinions also. Above all others did trouble the mar­ket two heady Priests, Iohn Hooper, and Iohn Roger, com [...] from beyond Seas, the one from VVittenberg, the other from Strasburg. These two dissenting wholy from th [...] course begunne by Cranmer, and Ridley, made a great fa­ction against the Common prayer booke, especially afte [...] that Hugh Latimer sided with them, who was of great re­gard with the common people.

8 The Protector seeing such differences in Religions and confusion, called a Parliament an 1547 but the Com­mon prayer booke could not then passe; this onely wa [...] determined about Religion, that none should speake irre [...] verently of the Sacrament of the Altar; and that all for mer Statuts made by the Kings of England against what soever Hereticks, or Sectaries, namely against Lohards VVickliffians, Hussits, Anabaptists &c. should be recalled and annulled. So as now every man might thinke, say preach, or teach what he thought fit.

9 But in the next Parliament the Common praye [...] booke was approved, because it seemed in matter of th [...] Sacraments to favour, and humour divers Sectaries wh [...] before had opposed it. Yet the common people in man shires of England tooke armes in defence of the old and Catholick Religion, complaining that most Sacrament were taken from them, and they had reason to feare th [...] rest (if they did not looke to it) would follow within short time. This was King Eduards Reformation, which [Page 5]he could not perfect, because he died within six yeares af­ter he had begunne.

10 It is very remarkable how in this Kings time it was resolved, that whatsoever should be determined by six Bi­shops (such as they were) and six men learned in the Law of God, or the major part of them, concerning the Rites and administrations of Sacraments; that onely should be followed; so that seaven men in England were thought a sufficient number to change the whole frame of Christian Religion, by changing the matter, and forme of Sacra­ments, abolishing the Sacrifice of the Masse, and the an­cient Rites, and ceremonies of the Catholick Church, which had beene practised for so many ages, and reveren­ced by all the pious, and learned men of the world. Here­sie is alwayes accompanied with presumption; yet never did any Sectaries before this time attribute to themselves so much, as ours did, preferring the judgement of seaven men to that of all the world, confirmed by so many gene­rall Councells, and holy Fathers. The forme of consecra­ting Priests set downe in the new Ritual, is this: Receive the holy Ghost, whose sinnes thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sinnes thou dost retaine, they are re­tained, and be thou a faithfull dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; in the name of the Fa­ther, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost: See the Ri­tual printed at London 1607. and for the Act authorising it, see Kallend an 3. Ed V [...]. cap. 12. and Mason pag. 94.

11 After King Eduard the VI. reigned his Sister Queene Mary, who being a Catholick her selfe, restored the Ca­tholick Religion by Act of Parliament, Cardinal Poole the Popes Legat absolving the Kingdome from the excommu­nication and schisme incurred. Some Histories of that ti­me relate that 30 thousand Sectaries, all strangers, Were banished out of England, and amongst the rest, the two holy Apostles Peter Martyr, and Bernard Ochinus. All King Eduards pretended Bishops were deposed and imprisoned, the Catholick Bishops set at liberty, and restored to their Seas. This Queene is as much condemned by Protestants for crucltie against their Religion, as Queene Elizabeth is censured by Catholicks: as if, forsooth, there were no difference betweene punishing upstart seditious novel­ [...]ists, and the maintainers of that Faith, Which had beene [Page 6]in possession from the time Christianity was brought into the Land.

12 Queene Mary deceased without issue, her Sister Eli­zabeth was proclaimed Queene, notwithstanding that all Catholicks knew Mary Steward the Queene of Scots, to be the lawfull heire of the Crowne. Queene Elizabeth shew­ing inclination to the new Religion, all the Catholick Bi­shops refused to crowne her; yet at length by great adoe she was crowned, and anointed, after the Catholicke man­ner, by Oglethorp Bishop of Carlile. The Reformation was by Act of Parliament againe established, notwithstanding the great opposition made by all the Bishops, and others in the upper House. The Queene was resolved to puil downe Catholick Religion, because Cecill, and others of her Councell perswaded her, that she could not be secure as long as the Popes authority was acknowledged in England; seeing the Sea Apostolick had declared her a bastard, and all Catholicks looked upon the Queene of Scots, as the true heire to the Crowne

13 Notwithstanding it was the Queenes temporall in­terest to pull downe Catholick Religion in England, yet it was much for her quiet, and peace of the Realme, to keepe alwayes a resemblance of it in the Clergy, as the best re­medy against Puritanisme, which was thought by Her Ma­jestie dangerous to Monarchy. Therefore the titles of Archbishops, Bishops, Deanes, and Chapters were retained, as also in her owne Chappell some Images, the Altar, and a Crucifix upon it.

Though the titles of the Catholick Clergy were be­stowed upon persons who favoured the new Religion, yet the Ordination was not; because that which was institu­ted by Edward the VI. was judged invalid by all Catho­licks, and so declared by publick judgement in Queene Marys reigne; in so much, that leases made by King E­dwards Bishops, though confirmed by the Deane, and Chapter, Brooks no­vell cases. Placito 463. fol. 101 printed at London 1604. were not esteemed available, because they were no, (saith the sentence) consecrated, nor Bishops. Some Pro­testants are so charitable as to say, that King Edwards Bi­shops were declared no Bishops, to the end Bonner, and other Catholick Bishops restored by Queene Mary, might make the leases voyd: let the world judge whether 3 Bon­ner, and others, who loft their Bishopricks for conscience [Page 7]sake alone, would commit so great a sacrilege as must needs follow out of declaring invalid King Edwards new forme of Ordination. They who renounced the proprie­ty for Religions sake, would not damne themselves for the profit of new leases.

14 Seeing therefore it concerned the Queene to have consecrated Bishops, and that in King Edwards reigne the Catholick Consecration was held to be superstition (most of the Clergy then being Zuinglians, or Puritans) the Queene endeavoured by all possible meanes to have such as she named for the Bishopricks, consecrated by Catho­licks; but they all resolved not to make Bishops in that Church, whereof themselves refused to be Members. An Irish Archbishop prisoner in the Tower was offered his liberty, and great rewards, if he would consecrate the newly elected; but he denyed to commit so great a sa­crilege.

CHAP. II. Of the Nullitie of the English Protestant Clergy.

1 THe Queene notwithstanding all this reluctan­cy of Catholick Bishops, named in her Letters Patents Anthony Kitchin Bishop of Landaf a­mongst others, to consecrate Parker, and his fellowes; because he was the onely man a­mongst all the Catholick Bishops that tooke the oath of Supremacy in her reigne. But this frailtie was not a suf­ficient ground to thinke that he would consecrate Parker, and others whom he knew to be Hereticks, and averse from the Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church, which himselfe so constantly adhered unto (the Suprema­cy onely excepted) during his life. Sacrobosc [...] lib. de inve­stig. Chri­sti Ecclesia cap. 14. D. Champ. cap. 14. Many others of the Catholick Bishops complyed with Henry the VIII. in that particular, who now refused to ordaine Parker: the same was Landaffe resolved to do; but at last by faire words and promises, they prevailed with the old man to give them a meeting at the Nags head in Cheap-side, where they ho­ped he would ordaine them Bishops, despairing that ever [Page 8]he would doe it publickly in a Church; because that would be too great and too notorious a scandall for Catholicks, amongst whom Landaffe desired to be numbered. Bonner Bishop of London being well informed of all that passed, sent one Master Neale his Chaplaine, an honest and learned man, who had formerly beene Lector in Oxford, to the Bishop of Landaffe, forbidding him under paine of ex­communication, to exercise any such power of giving Or­ders in his Diocesse: wherewith the old man being terti­fied, and otherwise also moved in his owne conscience, re­fused to proceed in that action, alledging chiefly for reason of his forbearance, his want of sight. Which excuse Par­ker, and the rest, interpreting to be but an evasion, were much moved against the poore old man; and whereas hi­therto they had used him with all curtesie, and respect, they then turned their copy, reviling and calling him doating foole, and the like; some of them saying, This old foole thinketh we cannot be Bishops unlesse we be greased, alluding to the Catholick manner of Episcopall unction.

2 Being thus deceived of their expectation, and having no other meanes to come to their desire, they resolved to use Master Scoryes helpe, an Apostata religious Priest, who having borne the name of Bishop in King Edward the VI. time, was thought to have sufficient power to performe that office, especially in such a streight necessity as they pretended. He having cast off together with his religious habit all scruple of conscience, willingly went about the matter, which he performed in this sort; having the Bi­ble in his hand, and they all kneeling before him, he laid it upon every one of their heads, or shoulders, saying, Take thou authoritie to preach the VVord of God sincearly. And so they rose up Bishops of the new Church of England.

3 This story of the Nags-head was first contradicted by Mason in the yeare 1613. yet so weakly and faintly, that the attentive Reader may easily perceive he feared to be caught in a lye, and convinced by some aged persons that might then be living, and remember what passed in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths reigne. In the yeare 1603. none of the Protestant Clergy durst call it a fable, or a tale of a Tub, as some now doe. Bancroft Bishop of Lon­don being demanded by Master VVilliam Alabaster how Parker, and his Collegues were consecrated Bishops? an­swered, [Page 9] He hoped that in case of necessity, a Priest (alluding [...] Scory) might ordaine Bishops This answer of his was ob­ [...]cted in print by Holiwod against him, and all the English [...]lergy, in the yeare 1603. not a word replyed, Bancroft [...]imselfe being then living. I have spoken with both Ca­ [...]olicks, and Protestants that remember neare 80. yeares, [...]nd acknowledge that so long they have heard the Nags­ [...]ead story related as an undoubted truth. In the begin­ [...]ing of the late Parliament some Presby terian Lords pre­ [...]nted to the upper House a certaine Booke, proving that [...]e Protestant Bishops had no succession, nor consecra­ [...]ion. and therefore were no Bishops, and by consequence [...]ad no right to sit in Parliament. Hereupon Doctor Mor­ [...]on pretended Bishop of Durham, who is yet alive, made [...] speach against this Booke in his owne, and all the Bishops behalfe, then present; he endeavoured to prove succession from the last Catholick Bishops, who (said he) [...]y imposition of hands ordained the first Protestant Bi­shops at the Nags-head in Cheap-side, as was notorious [...]o all the world &c. Therefore the aforesaid Booke [...]ought to be looked upon as a groundlesse Libell. This was told to many by one of the ancientest Peeres of Eng­ [...]and, present in Parliament when Morton made his speech. And the same he is ready to depose upon his oath. Nay, he can not believe, that any will be so impudent, as to de­ [...]y a thing so notorious, whereof there are as many wit­nesses living, as there are Lords and Bishops, that were that day in the upper House of Parliament.

4 This narration of the Consecration at the Nags-head have I taken out of Holiwood, Constable, and Doctor Champ­neys workes; they heard it from many of the ancient Cler­gy, who were prisoners for the Catholick Religion in VVisbich Castle, as Master Bluet, Doctor VVatson Bishop of Lincolne, and others. These had it from the said Master Neale, and other Catholicks, present at Parkers Consecra­tiod in the Nags-head, as Master Constable affirmes. The story was divulged, to the great griefe of the newly con­secrated; yet being so evident a truth, they durst not con­tradict it; notwithstanding that not onely the nullitie of their Consecration, but also the illegalitie of the same, Counter­blast fol. 301. was objected in print against them not long after, by that famous Writer Doctor Stapleton, and others, whose [Page 10]words I will set downe in the proper place.

5 Parker and the rest of the Protestant Bishops not be­ing able to answer the Catholicks arguments against th [...] invaliditie of their Ordination, nor to cry downe the ille­gall and extravagant manner of it at the Nags-head, wer [...] forced to beg an Act of Parliament, whereby they migh [...] enjoy the temporalities, notwithstanding the knowne de­fects of their Consecration against the Canons of th [...] Church, and the Lawes of the Land. For, albeit Edwar [...] the VI. Sanders lib. 3 de schism. Mason Pag. 121. Poulton in his Kalend. pag. 141. n. 5. Rite of Ordination was reestablished by Act o [...] Parliament in the first yeare of Queene Elizabeths reign [...] yet it was notorious, that the Ordination of the Nags head was very different from it, and framed ex tempore b [...] Scorys Puritanicall spirit, that hated no lesse a set forme o [...] consecrating Bishops, then of praying to God. The word of the Act are: Such forme and order for the consecrating [...] Archbishops, Bishops, Priests &c. as was set forth in the tim [...] of King Edward the VI. shall stand, and be in full force, and ef­fect; and all Acts and things heretofore had, made, or done by any person, or persons, in or about any Consecration, Confirma­tion, or Investing of any person, or persons elected to the office or dignitie of Archbishop, Bishop &c. by vertue of the Queen [...] Letters Patents, or Commission sithence the beginning of he reigne, be, and shall be by authoritie of this Parliament decla­red, and judged good, and perfect in all respects, and purposes any matter or thing that can, or may be objected to the contrary thereof in any wise, notwithstanding. 8. Eliza. 1. By which Act appeares, that not onely King Edwards Rite, but any other used since the beginning of the Queenes reigne up­on her Commission, was enacted for good, and conse­quently that of the Nags-head might passe. Hence it wa [...] that they were called Parliament Bishops.

6 Master Mason a great stickler for the valid Ordination of Parker, Pag. 133. of whom depends that of all the Protestan [...] Clergy, seeing this to be over cleare to be denyed, labou­reth to shadow it at least in some sort, saying, that th [...] Queene did but dispense with the trespasses against her own Lawes, not in essentiall points of Ordination, but onely in acci­dentall; not in substance, but in circumstance. But if the Con­secration was at Lambeth, and according the forme o [...] King Edward the VI. what ueed was there of any dispensa­tion, especially given not in conditionall, but in very abso­lute [Page 11]termes? both substance, and circumstance was ac­ [...]ording the Protestant Lawes. The truth is, all the world [...]ught at the Nags-head Consecration; and held it to be [...]valid, not so much for the circumstance of being per­ [...]rmed in a Taverne, as for the new forme invented by [...]ory, differing not onely from that of the Church, but al­ [...] from that which is prescribed in the English Ritual of [...]dward the VI. and confirmed 1. Eliza.

7 This is demonstrated in the publike, Abridge­ment of Diers re­ports 7. Eli­za. 234. and notorious [...]se of Bishop Bonner, who being prisoner in the Marshal­ [...]a was indited by Master Horne (one of the first Protestant [...]shops, consecrated by Master Parker, or together with [...]m) for refusing to take the oath of supremacy He ap­ [...]eared before the Judges of the Kings Bench. The indi­ [...]ment being read, he excepted against it, because the oath [...]as said to have beene tendered unto him by Robert Horne [...]shop of VVinchester, who was by no Law Bishop, and [...]herefore had no authoritie to tender him the oath. After [...]uch debate at the barre, and after by all the Judges at [...]argeants-Inne in Fleetstreete, in Judge Catline the chiefe [...]ustice his Chamber, it was resolved by all the Judges, [...]hat Bishop Bonner his plea upon this issue, that he was not [...]ulpable, because Horne was no Bishop when he tendered [...]im the oath, should be received, and that the Jury should [...]y it: no [...] what the triall was, appeareth by that he was [...]t condemned, nor ever troubled any further for that [...]se, though he was a man specially shot at. Hereupon in [...]e next yeare following 8. Eliza. the aforesaid Act of [...]arliament was made.

8 Notwithstanding all these testimonies, and evidences [...]f Protestants against themselves, and the constant pra­use of Catholicks reordaining their Ministers not condi­ [...]onally, but absolutely, (an evident argument of their [...]eere secularitie, and laytie) the moderne Protestant [...]ergy endeavour to make the world believe, that Parker, [...]d the first Protestant Bishops were consecrated by im­ [...]sition of hands of true and lawfull Bishops with great [...]lemnity at Lambeth. This they prove by certaine Re­ [...]rds produced by Master Mason in the yeare 1613. fifty [...]ares after they ought to have beene shewed, and in a ti­ [...]e, it can not be testified by any lawfull witnesses of [...]eirs, that they were not forged. There can not be a more [Page 12]evident marke of forgery, then the concealment of Re­gisters, if they be usefull, and necessary to the very same persons in whose custody they are: if they did produce none, when their adversaries did insult, and triumph over them, its as impossible any should be then extant, as it is, that men should conspire with their greatest adversaries, to take upon themselves, and their Church, an everlasting infamie. It is not worth the refuting, that which some moderne Protestants say: Ye have no Witnesses for the stor [...] of the Nags-head, and other things objected against Protestants, but Roman Catholicks, we value not their testimony, because they are our knowne adversaries, a party concerned against us &c. This weake answer is very frequent, though no lesse ridiculous, then the exception that a certaine Officer of the Parliament in Ireland, made against the testimony of all the Inhabitants of a Village he had pillaged. They com­plained to his Commander, who shewing unto the Offi­cer, how many witnesses there were of his misdemeanour; he replyed, there was not one lawfull witnesse amongst them, because they were all concerned in the businesse and a part: when Protestancy begunne in England, and the first Protestant Bishops were consecrated at the Nags-head, all who were not Protestants, were Roman Catholicks; no others could be witnesses of their Ordination but Ca­tholicks, or themselves; and truly their owne silence in a matter that concerned them so much to speake against, doth demonstrate they had nothing to say against the te­stimony of Catholicks. Silent witnesses in some circum­stances prove more then any others. Qui tacit, consentire videtur.

9 As soone as Master Mason published his Records. Fitz Herbert suspected them, his words are these: It was my chance to understand that one Master Mason hath lately pu­blished a Booke, Wherein he endeavoureth to prove the first Pro­testant Bishops Consecration by a Register. Thou shalt there­fore understand, good Reader, that this our exception against the English Clergy is no new quarrell now lately raised, but ve­hemently urged divers times heretofore many yeares ago, yea in the very beginning of the late Queenes reigne urging them to shew how, and by whom they were made Priests, Bishops &c. And what, trow you, was answered thereto? was there any Bi­shop named who had consecrated them? was Master Masons [Page 13] Register, or any other authenticall proofe thereof produced by [...]aster Jewell, or Master Horne? No truly. This then being [...], I report me to the judgement of any indifferent man, What redit Master Masons new found Register deserveth being pro­ [...]uced now after fifty and odde yeares to testifie this Consecra­ [...]ion, whereof not so much as any one witnesse was named, nor [...]ny Register pretended by those whom it most imported to prove [...]. 5. or 6. yeares after it was supposed to be done. This and much more did Fitz Herbert print in the yeare 1613. in his Appendix to the Discovery of Doctor Andrews absurdities, [...]alsities, lyes &c. I say that no mention was ever made of Registers, or Records testifying Parkers Consecration at Lambeth, untill Master Mas [...]n printed his Booke by Master Abbots command. For, though in a Booke called Antiqui­ [...]ates Britanniae pag. 39. edit. Hanoviae an. 1605. there be a Re­gister of the Protestant Bishops in England, thrust in with­but any necessity, or purpose, immediatly after Saint Au­stin the first Archbishop of Canterbury, yet that very Re­gister doth not mention any certaine place, or forme of their Consecration; so that it might be performed as well at the Nags-head, as at Lambeth.

But that all the world may see how this very Register was forged. I will set downe the words of the learned Author of a Booke called The Iudgement of the Apostles, and first agein points of Doctrine questioned betweene the Catholicks and Protestants of England, printed an 1633. Pag. 209. It hath beene pretended from a new borne Register of Mathew Parker, that [...]he was made a Bishop by Barlowe, Scory, and three others, by vertue of a Commission from Queene Elizabeth, and this new worke was acted on the 17. day of December, an. 1559. but [...]alas, they had then no forme, or order to do such a businesse. Pag. 349. VVhereas this printed Booke of Parkers Antiquitates Britan­niae is the first that mentioneth any such pretended Consecra­tion of him, and the rest, and the other VVriters seeme to bor­row this from thence: in the old Manuscript of that Booke which I have seen, and diligently examined, there is not any mention, or memory at all, of any such Register, or Consecra­ [...]ion of either Mathew Parker, Pag. 211. or any one of those pretended Protestant Bishops, as the obtruded Register speaketh of. And any man reading the printed Booke will wanifestly see it is a meerly foisted, and inserted thing, having no connexion, cor­respondence, or affinitie either with that which goeth before, or [Page 14]followeth it. And containeth more things done after Mathe [...] Parker had written that Booke. But now let us see how th [...] Protestant Clergy was charged with the nullitie, and ill­galitie of Ordination; and how they never stopt the Adversaries mouths with Masons Registers, or Records.

10 Consider (saith Doctor Bristow) what Church that i [...] whose Ministers are but very lay-men, Mot. 21. unsent, uncalled, unco [...] secrated, holding therefore amongst us, when they repent, an [...] returne, no other place but lay-men, in no case admitted, no n [...] looking to minister in any office, unlesse they take Orders, whic [...] before they had not? Master Fulke, who was ignorant of no [...] thing in this point, that Master Mason did know, answer­ing Bristow his objection, denyeth ordinary calling to b [...] alwayes necessary; which desperate shift he would neve [...] have used, if he had beene provided of so easy and suffi­cient an answer, as Master Masons Records would have af­forded him, if they had beene authenticall, or extant.

11 Master Reynolds: Calvino Turcis lib. 4. cap. 15. There is no heardman in all Turkie which doth not undertake the governmen of his heard upon bet­ter reason, and greater right, order, and authoritie, then thes [...] your magnificent Apostles, and Evangelists can shew for thi [...] divine, and high office of governing soules, reforming Chur­ches &c.

12 Doctor Stapleton in his Counterblast against Maste [...] Horne pretended Bishop of Winchester hath these urging speeches: Fol 7. & 9. To say truly you are no Lord VVinchester, nor else­where, but onely Master Robert Horne. Is it not notorious that ye, and your Collegues were not ordained according to th [...] prescript, I will not say of the Church, but even of the very Sta­tues? How then can you challenge to your selfe the name of the name of the Cord Bishop of VVinchester? Fol. 301. You are without any Consecration at all of your Metropolitan, himselfe poore man being no Bishop neither.

13 Doctor Harding in his Detection of sundry foule er­rours against Master Iewell. Fol. 129. You tell not half my tale (which truly is noted by many, that Master Iewell passes over the difficulties without answering, or mentioning) I laid for my foundation out of raint Hierome the se words Ecclesia [...]on­est, quae non habet Sacerdotem: that is, no Church, which hath not a Priest, or Bishop, &c. for Sacerdos, as you know, doth signifie both a Priest, and Bishop. I aske then as well of your Bishoply vocation, and of your sending, as of your Priest­hood [Page 15]&c. These being my questions, Master Jewell, you answer [...]ither by what example hands were laid on you, nor who sent [...]u, but onely say, he made you Priest, that made me in King [...]dwards time. Verily I never had any name, or title of Priest­ [...]od given to me, during the raigne of King Edward. I onely [...]ke the order of Deaconship, as it was then ministred, fur­ [...]er I went not, &c. Truly after I had well considered with [...]y selfe these questions, which in my confutation I moved unto [...]u, I tooke my selfe neither for Priest, nor yet for lawfull Dea­ [...]n in all respects, by those orders which were taken in King [...]dwards dayes, being well assured that those, who tooke upon [...]em to give orders, were altogether out of order themselves, [...]nd ministred them not, according to the Kite, and manner of [...]e Catholick Church, as who had forsaken the whole succession [...] Bishops in all Christendome, and had erected a new Con­regation of their owne planting, the forme whereof was ima­ [...]ned in their owne braines, and had not beene seen, nor pra­ [...]ised in the world before.

14 Master Iewell answers all this with profound silence, [...]s though it had never beene written, albeit he would ha­ [...]e the world believe that he hath fully answered in sub­ [...]ance, at least the whole Booke, wherein these things are [...]ontained. Now whether the true reason of this dissem­ [...]ling silence be not the want of all probable meanes, and [...]ecords, let the discreete Reader judge. Onely he sayes without any proofe, that their Bishops are made by forme. [...]nd order, and by the consecration of the Archbishop, and other [...]hree Bishops, and by the admission of the Prince.

To this Doctor Harding replyes: But ye were made you [...]ay, by the consecration of the Archbishop, and other three Bi­shops. And how I pray was your Archbishop consecrated? what [...]hree Bishops in the Realme were there to lay hands upon him? You have now uttered a worse case for your selves, then was by [...]ne before named. For your Metropolitan, who should give an­ [...]horitie to all your consecrations, himselfe had no lawfull conse­ [...]ration. If you had beene consecrated after the forme, and order which hath ever beene used, ye might have had Bishops out of France, to have consecrated you, in case there had lacked in Eng­ [...]and. But now there were ancient Bishops enough in England, who either were not required, or refused to consecrate you; which [...] an evident signe that ye sought not such a Consecration as had [...]eene ever used, but such an one, whereof all the former Bishops were ashamed.

15 All this sharp reply affirming so directly Master Pa­ker not to have beene consecrated, whereby the consecra­tions of all the rest are necessarily and confessedly prove to be none, Master Iewell (finding nothing to answer the reunto) dissembleth, as he doth the former, and takes oc­casion from some words of Master Harding, to discour [...] of the notice which ought to be given to the Bishop [...] Rome, and others, when Bishops were consecrated. Bu [...] not one word of the maine point, nor of Master Mason h [...] Records. What therefore can any man of indiffere [...] judgement thinke in this case, but that these Records wer [...] not then extant, or were forged? For if they had beene i [...] those dayes, and not forged, how is it possible that the [...] should not be produced by Horne, Iewell, Parker, and th [...] rest whom it specially behooved to make proofe of thei [...] owne calling, being so often, and earnestly urged thereun­to by their adversaries, triumphing over them for want o [...] due, and authenticall proofe thereof? Yet these Record were never mentioned by any of them. To say that i [...] Parkers life the Reader is remitted to I knowe not wha [...] Registers, as also that an Act of Parliament 8. Eliz relate to some Registers, or Records concerning the consecration of the English Clergy, is no proofe of Master Masons Re­cords; because its but a generall terme, and a word o [...] course, which men do rather suppose then examine, whe [...] they mention things that have beene practised in forme times. But that there were no Records of Parkers conse­cration at Lambeth in the eighth yeare of Queene Eliza­beth, nor when his life was written, is evident to any ma [...] who will reflect upon how much the Catholick Doctor then, and before, urged to see some evidence of his, an [...] others consecration, and yet none was ever produced. But suppose there were Records of Parkers consecration 8. Eliz doth that prove they were not forged? could they not b [...] forged as well in Queene Elizabeths time, as in King Iame [...] his reigne? If they were then extant, and n [...]t produce [...] against the Catholick Doctors, it was because in Queene Elizabeths time, many were living who would have pro­ved them to be forged. So that the Act of Parliament, and the life of Parker relating the Records, makes them more incredible, then if no mention at all were made of them.

16 An other reason why Master Masons Registers, Sect. 2. and [Page 17]Records ought to be judged counterfeited, is, because they disagree with those that Master Goodwin used in his Catalogue of Bishops, sometimes in the day, sometimes in the moneth, and sometimes in the yeare, as is manifest in the consecrations of Doynet, Ridley, Coverdall, Grindall, Horne, Gneast, Piers: which necessarily proveth falsitie in the one at least, with a prudent suspicion of forgery in both. Againe Master Mason, Master Sutcliffe, and Master Butler, all speaking of Master Parkers consecration, do all differ one from the other in naming his Consecrators. For Master Mason saith it was done by Barlowe, Scory, Coverdall, and Hodgekins. Master Sutcliffe saith besides the three first named by Master Mason, there were two Suffragans, as the Act of consecration yet to be seen (saith he) mentioneth. Master Butler saith the Suffragan of Dover was one of the Consecrators, who notwithstanding is not so much as na­med in the Queenes Patents, whereby Commission was given to the named therein to consecrate Master Parker. So that these men seeme to have had three divers and dis­agreeing Registers of one and the same action, and there­fore the credit of every one of them is made uncreditable. Master Mason ought to have answered as Master VVhitaker, and Master Fulke, who had reason to be better informed of the Records, then he, because they lived in, and about the time, the English Ordination was first called in que­stion. Contra Dureum pag. 821. Answer to a counter­faite Ca­tholick, pag. 50. pag. 67. I would not have you thinke (saith VVhitaker) we ma­ke such reckoning of your Orders, as to hold our owne vocation unlawfull without them, and therefore keepe them to your sel­ves. Master Fulke speakes more plainly: You are highly de­ceived if you thinke we esteeme your Offices of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons better then Laymen. And in his retentive: VVith all our heart we defie, abhorre, detest, and spit at your stinking, greasy, Antichristian orders. Is it credible that these prime Protestants would answer thus, if they had not known full well that the story of the Nags-head was true?

17 But (graunt the Records were not forged) there can be produced no Records to witnesse, that Master Barlowe was consecrated, and yet Master Mason acknowledgeth, that Master Barlow was the man who consecrated Parker: Champn. cap. 14. because Hodgekins the Suffragan of Bedford, was onely an Assistant in that action, and the Assistants in the Prote­stant Church, do not consecrate. Master Mason proves [Page 18] Barlowes consecration onely by conjectures, because he discharged all things belonging to the order of a Bishop, even Episcopall consecration. But by the like forme of ar­gument might he be proved (saith Doctor Champney) to have beene a lawfull husband, because he had a woman, and divers children. Secondly (saith Mason) Barlowe was acknowledged, and obeyed as a Bishop. So were Ridley, Hooper, Farrer, and others, during the time they held the roomes of Bishops in King Edward the VI. time, and ye [...] were they judged (as we have seen before) by both spiri­tuall, and temporall Court, not to have beene consecra­ted.

18 Seeing therefore no Records of Master Barlowe consecration do appeare, and that we have no reason to believe they perished by fire, or other extraordinary acci­dent, happening to the Metropolitanes, and all other Re­gisters, how can he be judged to have beene truly conse­crated? Especially seeing (as Master Mason saith) the Re­gister of Cranmer beare record of Master Barlowes prefer­ment to the Priory of Bishame, Pag. 127. of his election to the Bi­shoprick of Saint Asath, and of the confirmation of the same; how is it therefore possible that his consecration (if ever it had beene) should not be found likewise re­corded? But the truth is, that Barlowe, as most of the Clergy of England in those times, were Puritans, and in­clined to Zuinglianisme; therefore they contemned, and rejected Consecration as a rag of Rome, and were con­tent with the extraordinary calling of God, and the Spi­rit, as all other Churches are, who pretend Reformation Neither is it credible that there was any other consecration of Parker, and his Camerades, but that which passe at the Nags-head. For if there were, Iohn Stow would not con­ceale it in his Annalls, who is so diligent in setting down all that passed, in and about London, especially concern­ing Master Parker, to whom he professeth love, and re­spect; therefore he would not omit his consecration, i [...] it were for his advantage to have it published; he having related the consecration of Cardinall Poole ( Parkers imme [...] diate Predecessor) with so many particulars. This dot [...] confirme Doctor Champneys and Master Constables testi­mony concerning Stow his acknowledging by word o [...] mouth to many persons, that the story of the Nags-hea [...] [Page 19]was very true, and that Parker had no other Ordination.

19 But what then must be said of Master Masons Re­cords? Its no want of charity, to judge they were for­ged; because they who make no conscience to falsifie Scripture, will forge Records. How notoriously the En­glish Clergy falsified Scripture, is demonstrated by Grego­ry Martin, in a learned Booke, intitled, A Discovery of the manifold corruptions &c. Its little judgement, or much pas­sion to thinke, that Master Masons Records are not for­ged; for, if they were true, how could they be concealed from Catholicks, and Protestant the space of 50. yeares; the knowledge of them being so necessary for to deter­mine the controversie of Protestant Ordination. Its want of charity, and judgement, to thinke that all the English Catholick Doctors would charge the Protestant Clergy with nullitie of Consecration without ground. Stapleton, Harding Bristow, and others, who did forsake all atho­mes for conscience sake, did surely examine the businesse before they published to the world in print the nullitie of Parkers Ordination, and charged him, and all the rest of being unsent, uncalled, unconsecrated, and thereby enga­ging posteritie to commit so many damnable sacrileges in reordaining those who had beene already validly ordained.

20 Master Mas [...]n in his second Edition endeavours to answer some of the exceptions here mentioned against his Records, as also Barlowe, and Parkers Consecration. But truly he brings nothing that can satisfie any prudent, and indifferent person. He proves that Parker was consecra­ [...]ed at Lambeth, and not at the Nags-head; because the Right Honourable Charles Howard Earle of Nottingham (saith Mason) told a friend of his (not named) in the yeare 616. that he was invited to Parkers consecration at Lam­beth, and that he was present at the banquet thereof. This story, though it were true, onely proves, that there was a good dinner at Lambeth which might very well be to con­ [...]eale the shamefull consecration at the Nags-head. Besi­ [...]es, we must take the Earles friend word for the Earles [...]estimony; and Master Masons word for this anonymous friends testimony. We bring more then one to witnesse of the Nags-head consecration, not onely Master Neale, and other Catholicks present thereat, men of learning, and nature judgement; but also Iohn Stow a Protestant: all [Page 20]of them knew how to distinguish betweene an Episcopa [...] Consecration, and a banquet. This testimony of Maste [...] Neale, and other Catholicks, who were present (as Mast [...] Constable affirmes) were not delivered to one onely friend as that of Nottingham, but to many vertuous Priests wh [...] communicated the whole story to Holiwood, Champn [...] Parsons, Fitzsimons, and many others, all men of known integritie, who published it to the world in print. Th [...] Priests and Jesuits to whom the Records were knowne [...] King Iames his time, protested against them as forged, an [...] improbable, as appeareth by the testimony of men yet li­ving, whose honestie can not be called in question: an [...] Father Fairekloth himselfe, one of the imprisoned Jesuit [...] testified so much to many, by word of mouth, and in w [...] ­ting. Soe that its strange how some Protestants have g [...] ven out so confidently the contrary: and how they e [...] deavour to make this so well grounded story a meere f [...] ble; and thereby call so many persons of much mo [...] learning, vertue, and prudence then themselves, fooles, [...] knaves.

21 Master Mason doth also endeavour to prove, th [...] Barlowe was consecrated Bishop in Honry the VIII. reign because (quoth Mason) he sate in Parliament, and was [...] possession of the temporalities. But Honry the VIII Le [...] ters Patents whereby he was installed in the temporalit [...] of his Bishoprick, which Mason himselfe cites, makes o [...] ly mention of his Acceptation, and Confirmation, but no [...] of his Consecration. Why should this last be omitted, [...] he were really consecrated, and the two first mentione [...] If he was installed in his temporalities not being con­crated, he might also sit in Parliament without consec­tion. As for the pretended exactnesse of the English R [...] ­cords, and the authentick Copies of every Bishops Co­secration, not onely in the Archbishops Registers, but so in the Chancery, and other Courts, and Bishoprick (which is the onely ground whereby the Protestant C [...] gy do now endeavour to make credible the new Record and Parkers Ordination at Lambeth) in case all this sho [...] be granted as true, it doth rather prejudice, then ma [...] taine their cause: because it proveth as much against B [...] lowe, as it seemes to favour Parker. For, if the exactne [...] and multiplicity of Records concerning every Bisho [...] [Page 21]consecration, doth demonstrate (as they pretend) their [...]ot being counterfeited; it being morally impossible to [...]ounterfeit so many hands, and testimonies; how is it [...]ossible that no Copies of Barlowes consecration do ap­peare in any Court, or Bishoprick of England? Yet Ma­ [...]ter Mason objects that Gardiner his Consecration doth [...]ot appeare in any Records that ever he could see, and [...]et we hold him to be a true Bishop. Therefore we ought [...]o believe the same of Barlowe, though his Consecration [...]e not registred. To this I answer first, that its very like, Master Mason did not trouble himselfe so much with seek­ing after Gardiners consecration, as after Barlowes; becau­se one did not import him as much as the other. But in [...]ase Gardiners Ordination were as necessary for the valid Consecration of the Roman Catholick Church, as Bar­ [...]owes, and Parkers are for the English Protestant Church: my second answer is, that if (all circumstances considered) Gardiners Consecration were as doubtfull as Barlowes, and Parkers, we Roman Catholicks would take to our selves [...]he same advice, we give English Protestants; that is, to repaire with all speed to some other Church of undoubted Clergy. If not, they are guilty of the losse of their owne soules, for venturing so rashly (being forewarned) to [...]ommit so many, and so great sacrileges against God, and his holy Sacraments

22 But as to the impossibility of forging so many Re­gisters; in case there be so many, it is easily answered, [...]hat it is no more, then that the Consecrator, and other persons concerned, should have conspired to give in, a fal­ [...]e Certificat, that the Consecration was performed with all due ceremonies, and rites; and thereby deceive the Courts, or make them dissemble: and this is a thing mo­ [...]e possible, and probable, then that all the Protestant Clergy should have conspired not to produce the said Re­gisters when they were so hardly prest by their adversa­ [...]ies. Or that so many Catholicks should have beene so [...]oolish to invent, and maintaine the story of the Nags­ [...]ead in such time, when if it had beene false, they might [...]ave beene convinced by thousand witnesses. Or that so many grave and learned Divines, who for conscience sake [...]eft all, should without feare of damnation ingage them­selves, and posterity, in damnable sacaileges, by occasion­ing [Page 22]so many sacrilegious reordinations upon their char [...] ging Protestants with no Ordination: no moderate an [...] prudent man can suspect that such persons should damn [...] their soules out of meere spight against the Church o [...] England. If we Catholicks did reordaine the Protestant Ministers upon title of their heresie, and not of thei [...] knowne invalidity, we should also reordaine the Grecia [...] Priests, which is notoriously against our practise, and Te­nets: in so much that we hold our selves obliged to exa­mine with all diligence, whether there be any probability of the person having received valid orders; and finding but any probable appearance thereof, the practise is, and hath beene for diverse ages, to give orders not absolutely but conditionally; whereas it is notorious that all our En­glish Ministers who after their conversion have beene ma­de Priests, received their Orders in absolute termes with­out any condition adjoyned, in the same manner which w [...] use in ordaining meere laymen.

23 Let us go one step further with our Protestant Cler­gy, and suppose that their first Bishops were ordained by Catholicks, we reserve yet another nullitie in store fo [...] their consecration. And to wave many doubts that migh [...] be moved concerning the matter of their Ordination, w [...] will onely speake of the forme, or words prescribed in the Protestant Rituall. It is a knowne principle common to both Protestants, and Catholicks, that in the forme of Or­dination there must be some word expressing the authori­ty, and power given to the person ordained; the inten­tion of the Ordainer expressed by generall words, indisse­rent, and appliable to all, or divers degrees of holy Or­ders, is not sufficient to make one a Priest, or a Bishop [...] As for example, Receive the holy Ghost, these words being indifferent to Priesthood, and Episcopacy, and used i [...] both Ordinations, are not sufficiently expressive of eithe [...] in particular; unlesse Protestants will now at length pro­fesse themselves Presbyterians, making no distinction be­tweene Priests, and Bishops; but they are as farre from that, as we Catholicks. In the words, or forme whereb [...] Protestants ordaine Bishops, there is not one word ex­pressing Episcopall power, and authority. The forme [...] this: Take the holy Ghost, and remember that thou stirre [...] the grace of God, which is in thee by impositions of hands, fo [...] [Page 23]God hath not given us the spirit of feare, but of power, and lo­ [...]e, and sobernesse. The grace of God is given by imposi­ [...]on of hands in all holy Orders, as also the spirit of [...]ower, love, and sobernesse. There is not one word in [...]his forme expressing the difference, and power of Episco­ [...]acy. Let Protestants search all Catholick Rituals not [...]nely of the West, but of the East; they will not finde [...]ny one forme of consecrating Bishops, that hath not the [...]ord Bishop in it, or some others expressing the particu­ar authority, and power of a Bishop, distinct from all o­ [...]her degrees of holy Orders. See Ioannes Morinus in his [...]earned Commentaries De sacris Ecclesiae Ordinibus, printed [...]t Paris an. 1655 who sets downe the ancient formes both [...]n Greeke and Latin, as well of Priesthood, as of Episco­ [...]acy.

24 The forme, or words whereby men are made Priests, must expresse authority, and power to consecrate, or make present Christs Body, and Bloud: whether with, or without Transubstantiation, is not our present Con­ [...]roversy with Protestants, but onely whether their forme hath words expressing authority, and power to make Christs Body truly present. See the forme of Priesthood used by the English Clergy set downe by me in the first Chap. num. 10. and you will not finde one word expres­sing this power, and authority. Receive the holy Ghost, doth not involve it, because its used in the consecration of Bishops, who would be recordained Priests when they receive Episcopall Order, if the said words include power [...]o consecrate Christs Body. To dispense, or minister the Sacraments come farre short of the power, and authority of consecrating the elements, or making present Christs Body: Deacons did minister, and dispense the Body of Christ to the people in ancient times, but were never [...]houht to have power, and authority of consecrating. The power of remitting sinnes doth not include power to consecrate, or make present the Body and Bloud of Christ; for, every layman hath power to remit sinnes by baptizing, and no layman hath power to consecrate, or make present Christs Body. Therefore words giving power to remit sinnes, doth not include power to conse­crate all Sacraments ordained for remission of sinnes, as some Protestants endeavour to make the ignorant believe. [Page 24]In all formes of ordaining Priests that ever were used in the Easterne, or Westerne Church, is expresly set downe the word Priest, or some other words expressing the par­ticular, and proper function, and authority of Priesthood. If any States, or Countrey should say, We choose such a person to be King, in the word King is sufficiently expres­sed all Kingly power, and authority. Therefore the Gre­cians using the word Priest, or Bishop in their formes, do sufficiently expresse the respective power of every Order.

25 The true reason why the English forme of making Priests, and Bishops, is so notoriously deficient, and inva­lid, is, because it was made in King Edward the VI. his ti­me, when Zuinglianisme, and Puritans did prevaile in the English Church; the reall presence was not believed by them of the Clergy who bore sway, therefore they did not put in the forme of Priesthood any word expressing authority, and power to make Christs Body present. They held Episcopacy, and Priesthood to be one, and the same thing; therefore in the forme of making Bishops, they put not one word epressing Episcopall function, onely some generall termes that might seeme sufficient to give them authority to enjoy the temporalities and Bishop­ricks. This is also the true reason why Parker, and his Collegues were content with the Nags-head consecration, and why others recurred to extraordinary vocation in Queene Elizabeths time. Its very credible, that if Master Laud had found successe in his first attempts, he would in time reforme the forme of the English Ordination, and thrust in some words expressing the power of Priests, and Bishops; seeing he, and others of the Protestant Clergy of late, Kallend. an. 3. Ed. Vl. c. 12. Mason pag. 94. did differ so much in opinion concerning Priesthood, and Episcopacy, from those who lived in King Edward the VI. time, and in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths reig­ne. He could not misse with six Prelats, and six other men learned in Gods Law, whereof the greater number might devise as warrantable a forme of making Bishops, and Priests, as was devised by the same number in King Edwards time. Yet all had beene in vaine, because neither Master Laud himselfe, nor any of the rest then living, could consecrate others, even with the Catholick forme, seeing none of them all had valid Ordination, as hath beene demonstrated. Therefore it was thought expedient [Page 25]to cover the want of the reality of true Ordination, with an exterior formality of long cloakes, and surplises, and supply the want of Sacrifice with crosses, and candlesticks upon the Altars.

26 Master Mason commends much the wisdome of the English Church that so discreetly, and religiously pared away all superfluous Ceremonies in Ordination: and saith, it was a singular priviledge of Master Parker, that being the 70. Arch­bishop after Saint Austin the Apostle of England, yet of all that number he was the onely man that received Consecration with­out the Popes Bulls, and superfluous Aaronicall ornaments. How discreet, and religious the English Church was in paring away pretended superfluities in Ordination, can not be de­termined by Master Mason, untill he makes appeare that all is superfluous in that kinde which he, and the Puritans, who made the English Rituall in King Edward the VI. ti­me, fancied superfluous. It is not the part of any particu­lar Church to pare away any thing that hath beene delive­red to them by antiquity to be observed. Though some words have beene added to ancient formes of Ordination, for their greater explanation, or solemnity, yet none were ever so rash, as to pare away any, especially those that seemed to signifie the power, and authority intended by the Ordainer.

27 To conclude this matter, I say with Saint Ierome: Ecclesia non est quae non habet Sacerdotem. How can the Pro­testant Church be the true Church, seeing it hath not any one Priest, or Bishop? Though it were not evident that it hath no valid Ordination, yet so many manifest uncer­tainties, and doubts, as themselves must acknowledge con­cerning their Ordination, doth demonstrate the nullitie of their Church. For if there remaine but one solid, and pru­dent doubt of the validity of Ordination of any Church, its impossible it should be the true Catholick, and Aposto­lick: because a doubtfull Clergy makes a doubtfull Church; and a doubtfull Church is no Church. The first step to Christian, and Catholick beliefe, is the well groun­ded credibility, excluding all prudent doubts, of that Church whereof we are members; if we have any pru­dent ground to doubt of the Clergy, we have the same to doubt of our Church, and of the Faith, or Doctrine pro­posed by its testimony: and the true Faith admits of no [Page 26]such doubts. Therefore Protestants before they can pru­dently believe to have true Faith, or be in the Catholick, must cleare all the doubts heretofore objected against their Ordination, which I will briefly summe up.

28 First they must prove clearly, that the story of the Nags-head was a fable, and consequently that Master Neale, and the other Catholicks, who said they were eye-witnes­ses of what passed, were impudent Impostors, and content to be convicted as such in the same place, and time that they invented so palpable a lye. Secondly, they must make appeare evidently, that all the Catholicks of that time, both Bishops, Priests, and others, who believed Master Neale, and suffered much for conscience, were all runne mad, because they believed so great a foppery; or if they did not believe him, they were most wicked, and sacri­legeous persons, to engage posterity by their relation and testimony, to reordaine the Protestant Clergy. Thirdly, they must demonstrate, that all the first Protestant Bi­shops, and others consecrated by them, did conspire, not to contradict the story of the Nags-head, and their owne invalid consecration, for the space of fifty and odde yea­res, to the great discredit of themselves, and their whole Church: where as they might easily stop their adversaries mouths, by producing witnesses, and Records of the pre­tended solemne Congregation at Lambeth, being so often demanded in printed Bookes, by whom, and how were they ordained? Fourthly, it must be made appeare to the world, that Bancroft Bishop of London, could be igno­rant of the publick Registers of Parkers Ordination at Lambeth, himselfe being so much concerned in it, and in the knowledge of it: if he were not ignorant of the pu­blick Registers, why did he answer so fondly, and contrary to the very Protestant principles, that a Priest might or­daine Bishops in case of necessity? Fifthly, it must be ma­nifestly proved, that not onely Bancroft was ignorant of the publick Registers, but that all the Bishops of England, who were present in the late Parliament, knew nothing of them; whereas Doctor Morton pretended Bishop of Dur­ham, affirmed publikely in the upper House, that the first Protestant Bishops were consecrated at the Nags-head. This answer all the rest approved by their silence, and were glad to have that retiring place against the Presbyterians, [Page 27]who proved clearly, that they were not consecrated at Lambeth, as Master Masen pretends. But if Doctor Mor­ton and the rest of the Bishops knew any thing of Masons Booke, and Registers, as infallibly they did, why did not they stick to that? This proves evidently, that none of them did give credit to Masons new found Registers.

29 Sixthly, supposing Master Masons forged Records were true, it must be made cleare that there was in their Ordination a competent number of true Bishops, and con­sequently that the Bishops of Edward the VI. were validly consecrated, notwithstanding the Declaration of the con­trary by publick Acts, and sentences in Queene Maryes reigne. Seventhly, if there was not a competent number of true Bishops, whether in the beginning of Queene Eli­zabeths reigne there, as any such necessity as Protestants pretended, having then in England 14. Catholick and true Bishops. Eighthly, it must be made appeare that Barlowe was consecrated, who was the principall Consecrator of Parker, for if he were, how is it possible that in all the Registers of England, and Wales, there should be no men­tion of his Consecration? Lastly, it must be proved clear­ly, that the forme used in the ordaining of Protestant Mi­nisters, and Bishops, is valid. It will be a very hard taske to cleare all these doubts, and exceptions How unfortu­nately was Charles the First, late King of England, misin­formed in matter of his Bishops, and Clergy. What scru­ple could he have had, if he had knowne the truth, to give way to the Parliament, to pull downe Parliament Bishops; who were so farre from being de Iure Divino, that they were not so much as de Iure Ecclesiastico.

30 And thus much I thought fit to produce at the pre­sent in confutation of what either hath, or may be said in behalfe of the English Protestant Clergy, and report me to the judgement of the impartiall Reader, how much he ought to rely upon their ministery, that by so many titles is proved to be null. But though any person should not be convinced of the nullitie of their Ordination, he can not but harbour a prudent doubt thereof, there being so evi­dent reasons, and motives for it, as have beene set downe in this Chapter. Now, to receive the Sacraments from Priests of so doubtfull authority, is without all doubt a damnable sacrilege, it being a thing in the highest degree [Page 26] [...] [Page 27] [...] [Page 28]against the light of reason, and the rules of Faith to expose to so manifest hazard the reverence of the Sacraments, and the remedy of our soules. It is time now to passe from the historicall relation of the introduction of a new found Heresie, and the intrusion of a new fashioned Clergy, to a more strict, and Scholasticall examination of the nature of Heresie, and Catholick Faith.

CHAP. III. Of Heresie.

1 BEfore Protestancy be compared with Heresie, its necessary to declare what Heresie is. Catho­lick Divines commonly define it to be an obsti­nate errour against any Doctrine of the Catho­lick Church. But because Protestants do not agree with us in determining what the Catholick Church is; that we may not be engaged in a new dispute, before we explaine what we have in hand, I thought fit to defi­ne Heresie in such a sort, that the definition may seeme in­different to all Christians, and suppose, or beg nothing to favour Catholicks, or condemne Protestants; because if ad­versaries agree not in some principles, they can not come to an issue to end the Controversies.

2 The definition is this: Heresie is an obstinate errour a­gainst the VVord of God, or the true sense thereof sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation. How shall it be knowne when any verity is sufficiently proposed as Divine Reve­lation? The bare word, or testimony of men doth not seeme to be a sufficient proposall of Gods revealed truths: because every Sect give their word, and testimony, in fa­vour of their owne Religion; assuring us that God re­vealed the doctrine, and interpretation of Scripture which they follow. And yet the contrary is evident; seeing God can not reveale the contradictions, nonsence, and contra­ry Tenets which are taught in so contrary Religions. Therefore the testimony of men, if not confirmed by so­me supernaturall signe, or miracle, can not be a sufficient proposall of Divine Revelation.

3 But if any Doctrine be testified by lawfull witnesses [Page 29]to be Divine Revelation, and their testimony be confir­med by miracles, all men are bound to believe that the said Doctrine was revealed by God. This is the reason why the perfidious Jewes did sinne grievously in not be­lieving the Doctrine of Christ, being confirmed with so many evident miracles. It is not necessary every person see a miracle, that the true Faith, and Doctrine of the Ca­tholick Church be sufficiently proposed to him as Divine Revelation; its enough that he can not prudently deny, or doubt, that miracles have beene wrought in confirmation of the Doctrine proposed. Christs Doctrine was suffi­ciently proposed as Divine to many Jewes, who were not present at his miracles; its enough they were credibly re­ported. Saint Augustine proved that miracles were wrought in confirmation of Christian Religion by this in­genious Dilemma. Either the world believing such stran­ge, and improbable things (to human sense) as our Faith teacheth; and so contrary to our naturall inclinations; did see them confirmed by miracles, or no. If they did see mi­racles, we have our intent. If they did believe without see­ing any miracle, we have our intent also; because that very beliefe is the greatest of all miracles: for how is it possible that sober, and wise men should be so mad, as to believe, and embrace a new and strange Doctrine, so re­pugnant to their senses, and contrary to their liberty, and naturall inclinations, if they had not beene wrought upon by some supernaturall power, and signes? In one word therefore we may conclude, that onely Faith, or Doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation, which is not onely proposed as such by the testimony of a Church, but of such a Church whose testimony hath beene con­firmed by unquestionable miracles, either seen by the be­liever, or at least so credibly reported to him by the testi­mony of honest, and learned men, that it were want of prudence in any person whosoever, to deny the truth, and sufficiency of such a testimony, and proposall.

CHAP. IV. In what doth the obstinacy of Heresie consist?

1 THere was never any Heretick so madly obsti­nate, as to give God the lye to his face, and in plaine termes; all Sectaries acknowledge him to be Truth it selfe, and therefore not capa­ble of deceiving, or of being deceived. The obstinacy of Hereticks is against Gods verities, not as they are uttered immediatly by himselfe, but as they are pro­posed by his Church. If God himselfe were pleased to speake immediatly to men, in such a manner, that it were evident, and cleare to them, the words, and sense which the Church proposeth, were dictated by himselfe, we should be little troubled with Heresies, none would be obstinate All the obstinacy of Hereticks proceeds from the difficulty they finde in believing that God doth speak, or declare his sense by the Church: this once granted, our understanding hath no difficulty to ubmit by an implicite Faith to whatsoever the Church proposeth as Gods Reve­lation, or Word.

2 Against cleare evidence there can be no obstinacy; the object of it must be involved in some obscurity, other­wise the will (which is the source of obstinacy) could not master the unstanding. He who denyes what is cleare, and evident, is more mad, then obstinate. There is nothing more generally acknowledged, or more cleate, and evi­dent to the understanding of all Christians, then this pro­position, If God said, or meant any thing its very true. The obstinacy therefore of Hereticks, doth not contest with this cleare, and confessed truth: it onely doubteth, or de­nyeth, that God said, or meant any such thing as the Church pretends; but no Heretick ever denyed, or doub­ted, but that if God meant, or said what the Church pretends, it must be true.

3 The difference therefore betweene an Heretick, and a Catholick, is not, that the Heretick denyes, or doubts, all that to be true which he thinks God revealed, or meant; but the difference consists in this, that the Heretick doth [Page 31]obstinatly deny, or doubt, that God said, or meant what [...]he Church proposeth as Divine Revelation; and the Ca­tholick doth firmely believe, he did say, and meane, whatsoever the Church proposeth as revealed. The Here­tick believes what the Church proposeth, onely conditio­ [...]ally, If God revealed it; reserving to his owne private [...]udgement (or to that of his first Patriarchs, Luther, Cal­vin, Chillingworth &c.) the decision of this controversie, VVhether God revealed it, or no? But the Catholick belie­ves absolutely, and doubts not but God revealed what the Church proposeth as revealed, submitting his judgement (in matters of Faith) to whatsoever the Church doth de­fine, or declare.

4 The obstinacy of Heresie may be well compared to the obstinacy of Rebellion, Heresie being indeed a Rebel­lion of private, and proper judgement against Gods au­thority, and veracity appearing sufficiently in his Church. Put the case that a Province of Spaine, or France did re­ject any Lawes, or Ordinances made by their King, and intimated by his Officers to the people, and proclaimed in the same Provinces. In case these Lawes, and the said Officers (who have all the exterior signes, or markes whereby the Kings authority is usually discerned) were contemned by the people, not because they doubt of their Kings legiflative power, but because they will not belie­ve he made such Lawes, or gave any such Commission to his Officers; would not the people, notwithstanding all this pretended ignorance, be Rebells, and obstinate against their Soveraigne? would it excuse them from the guilt of Rebellion, to alledge in their owne behalfe, that they did not thinke, or believe, the King commanded any such thing, as his Officers pretended, and proclaimed? Their very excuse involves obstinacy, and Rebellion. The obe­dience and duty, which Subjects owe to their King, must be extended also to his Officers; they must obey their Soveraigne, not onely when himselfe commands, but also when the Officers that have the ordinary signes of his au­thority, do command in his name.

5 This is the case of Hereticks. They protest if they had thought, or believed, that the Doctrine of the Ro­man Church was revealed by God, they would embrace it with all their heart. But they do not consider, that this [Page 32]very If, or doubt, is their crime, and heresie. What rea­son, or prudent ground have they to doubt, that Go [...] doth speake by the Roman Church, as Kings do by the [...] Officers? No Officers, or Ministers have more authen [...] ­tick, and credible signes of their Kings authority, the the Roman Catholick Church hath of Gods Commission and trust, of proposing his Revelations, and interpretin [...] his meaning of Scripture, as is demonstrated in the 14 [...] and other Chapters. Now its sufficient to know, that th [...] signes of the true Church are Miracles, Sanctity of Doctrine and life, conversion of Nations, continuall succession (from th [...] Apostles to the present age) both of Pastors, and Doctrine &c. These signes are obvious to our senses, and may b [...] perceived by all people, Clounes, Souldiers, and other illi­terate persons, that will inquire, and examine the history of their owne Countrey, or the Religion of their Ance­stors. Whatsoever amongst all the Christan Churches, hath these signes, That Church must be heard, obeyed and believed, as having Gods authority, and Commission to decide all doubts, and controversies of Faith; whoso­ever believes not her Definitions, and obeyes not her De­crees, is an obstinate Heretick, and Rebell.

CHAP. V. Of the Catholick Church.

1 SEeing the obstinacy of Hereticks is against Gods Revelations, as they are proposed by the testimo­ny of the Catholick Church, its required some­thing be said of this Church. That there is a Ca­tholick and visible Church in this world, is granted (tacitely) by all Hereticks, seeing every Sect o [...] them pretends to be the whole, or at least one part of the Catholick Church.

2 The Catholick Church is a multitude, or Congre­gation of men, whose testimony doth so sufficiently pro­pose their Doctrine to be Gods Word, and the true mean­ing thereof, that it is evidently imprudence, and infallible damnation in any person whosoever, not to acquiesce i [...] the said testimony, and not to believe (without the least [Page 33]doubt) what it proposeth as Divine Revelation. There are but two wayes to convince the understanding of man; the one is evident, and cleare reason; the other is autho­rity. To some things its necessary, even for salvation, we give our assent, though no evident, and cleare reason ap­peareth; authority (that is, the testimony of lawfull wit­nesses) must be taken for reason, and supply the want of it. It is unreasonable, and damnable, not to honour our Prin­ces, and Parents, though they have no other evidence, or reason to shew, that they are our lawfull Princes or Pa­rents, but the authority, and testimony of lawfull witnes­ses. God therefore having decreed that men should be­lieve some mysteries above reason, commanded all, to be­lieve under paine of damnation whatsoever the Church saith he revealed. It is not unreasonable that God should condemn us for not believing the testimony of the Catho­lick Church in matters of Faith, which are above reason; seeing we shall be condemned, if we believe not the testi­mony of our Neighbours concerning our Princes, and Pa­rents. Is it a lawfull excuse for any man to say, If I had be­lieved such a man to be my Soveraigne, I would obey him; or such a woman to be my Mother, I would honour her? If there be lawfull witnesses for Prince, or Parents, their testimony is to be believed; the very not believing them is a crime, though there be no more evidence for it, then the said testimony. Therefore à fortiori, the not believing the testimony of the Church, confirmed with so many signes, in matters of Faith, is a crime, and obstinate he­resie.

3 Some Protestant Divines of the English Church are so civill, as to admit of us Roman Catholicks, and so eha­ritable, as not to exclude any Christians from being a part of the Catholick Church: yet we have reason to thinke, that its no civility, or kindnesse, but interest, that moves them to open the dore to us, because if they reject us, themselves can not pretend to be a Church, having nei­ther succession of Bishops, nor (without begging our testi­mony) any solid proofe, that Scripture is Gods Word. What Bookes of Scripture they are pleased to accept of as Divine Revelation, they do it upon our score and word; but the sense which we delivered to them with the said Books, as the most principall part of Gods Word, they do [Page 34]refuse; never being able hitherto to give any tolerable reason why they take our word more for the letter o [...] Scripture, then for the sense, and meaning of it? If we de­serve credit in one, why not in both? being no lesse against our conscience, and as much in our power, to corrupt the letter, as the sense. But of their obstinacy in this particu­lar, and others, I shall discourse more at large when speake of Protestancy. Now I will proceed in the disco­very of the true Church.

CHAP. VI. VVhether all Christians be the Catholick Church or whether it may be composed of any two, or more Congregations of them, if not agreeing in all matters whatsoever which any one Congregation, or Church pretends to be revealed by God?

1 THis is as much as to demand, Whether Ca­tholicks, and Protestants both, may be part of the Catholick Church? Protestants (as w [...] have seen in the former Chapter) say, that a [...] Christian Congregations are parts of the Ca­tholick Church, as well as we Roman Catholicks. Thi [...] assertion they ground upon the signification of the wor [...] Catholick, which is as much to say, as Vniversal. In the sa [...] me sense they explicate Catholick Tradition to be onel [...] that which is contradicted by any Christian Church. Ac­cording to this opinion, no Congregation of Christian can be Hereticks; because Hereticks must be obstinate a­gainst the Doctrine of the Universall, or Catholick Church: but no Christians can be obstinate against th [...] Doctrine of the Catholick or Universall Church; seein [...] themselves are part of it, and they can not be obstinate a­gainst themselves, or their owne Tenets, and Doctrine therefore none can be Hereticks. This absurd, and here­ticall sequele is a sufficient refutation of the Protestant principle, and their explication of the word Catholick.

2 But let us prove directly that neither all Christians, nor any two Churches dissenting in their testimonies, con­cerning whatsoever matters of Faith, can be the Catho­lick Church. My proofe is this: The testimony of the Catholick Church, concerning what is pretended to be re­vealed, or not revealed by God, must oblige all persons who are informed of it, to believe what it saith, and pro­poseth. But if all Christians, or any two Churches not agreeing in their testimonies (suppose Roman Catholicks, and Protestants) be parts of the Catholick Church, the testimony thereof can not oblige any sober person to be­lieve what both say, and propose. First, because one Church contradicts the other, and its impossible to belie­ve contradictions at one, and the same instant. Secondly, when witnesses do not agree in their testimonies, if they be of equall authority, no man is obliged to believe either side, but rather is bound in prudence, to suspend his judge­ment. Therefore if the Catholick Church be composed of all Congregations, and Churches of Christians, or of any two Churches not agreeing in their testimonies con­cerning matters of Faith, no man is obliged to believe the testimony of the Catholick Church, but rather to suspend his judgement, and credit nothing: which sequele is ab­surd, and contrary to the Doctrine not onely of Catho­licks, but also of Protestants. Therefore the Catholick Church must not be all Congregations of Christians, or any two dissenting, but one onely Congregation of per­sons who agree in one Faith.

CHAP. VII. VVhether the testimony of the Catholick Church be infallible not onely (as Protestants terme them) in fundamentall, but also in not fundamentall articles of Faith?

1 THough we Catholicks say that all articles of Faith, if once sufficiently proposed, are, in one sense, fundamentall; because under paine of damnation they must be believed: yet in an­another sense we admit a distinction betweene [Page 36]fundamentall, and not fundamentall articles of Faith. Fun­damentall articles may be called such as no ignorance of them can excuse men from damnation, for not being be­lieved. Not fundamentalls may be called such articles as if proposed, must be believed; but if not proposed suffi­ciently, the ignorance of them is excusable.

2 But whether these articles be both called fundamen­tall, or onely the first sort of them, our controversie with Protestants is the same, and the question is not set here out of its proper place; because the resolution of it is ne­cessary to answer an objection, which Protestants make against the Doctrine of the former Chapter. All Christians (say they) do agree in fundamentall points of Faith, as in the Trinity, Incarnation, &c. what great matter is it, if they agree not in other things of little importance, with­out the knowledge, and sufficient proposall whereof, they may be saved, as Purgatory, Transubstantiation, &c? Why should we be obliged to believe things that are not absolutely necessary for salvation? especially seeing Ro­man Catholick Divines do not deny, that ignorance of not fundamentalls is not damnable? Therefore all Christians (though dissenting in not fundamentalls) may be called Catholicks, and the universall Church; because they agree in all necessary articles of Catholick Religion; and though their testimonies do not agree in Purgatory, v.g. being an article of Faith; why should their disagreement in that petty point invalid their testimony concerning the myste­ry of the Trinity, Incarnation, and other fundamentall ar­ticles.

3 This discourse, and objection of Protestants hath damned many a soule, because they did not examine the truth of it as they ought. But to declare the fallacy of it, something must be said of the Churches infallibility. Most Protestants do grant, that the testimony of the Church is infallible in proposing the fundamentall articles of Chri­stian Religion; as, in delivering Scripture to be Gods Word, and in declaring the mystery of the Trinity &c. be­cause Christian, and Catholick Faith must admit of no doubts concerning the truth of fundamentalls; and if the Church be not infallible in proposing those to us, we must necessarily doubt of their truth; for, though we doubt not that whatsoever God said is true, yet we can not but [Page 37]doubt, whether he revealed or meant any such thing as the mystery of the Trinity, or Incarnation, if we do not believe that the Church is infallible in proposing the said mystery? God therefore in his Providence can not permit the Church to erre, or deceive us in fundamentalls, see­ing its necessary for our salvation not to doubt of the truth of fundamentall mysteries; but if the Church may erre in proposing them, we can not but doubt of their truth. This reason (say Protestants) can not be applyed to not fun­damentalls, because they are not absolutely necessary for salvation; and our salvation is the onely motive that God had to make the Church infallible in proposing articles of Religion. Therefore none is bound to believe, that the Church is infallible in not fundamentalls.

4 If the onely motive that God had to make the Ca­tholick Church infallible, were our salvation, this discour­se of Protestants might have some colour of truth; but Gods motive in all his actions, is not onely our salvation, but (in first place) his owne honour, and glory. There is nothing concerns Gods honour more, then that, whatso­ever is sufficiently proposed as revealed by him, be credi­ted by us without the least doubt; whether the matter be great, or of little importance. Therefore the Churches infallibility, and our obligation of believing it, ought not to be measured by the greatnesse, importance, or absolute necessity of the matter proposed, in order onely to our sal­vation; but also by the sufficiency of the proposall, in or­der to Gods honour, and veracity. If a matter not abso­lutely necessary for salvation be as sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God, as the mystery of the Trinity, the obligation is as great of believing the one without any doubt, as the other. The reason is cleare; because there is as great an injury done to God, by denying, or doubting of his veracity, and revelation, in a small matter, as in a great. In believing we are as much bound to have a re­gard to Gods honour, as to our owne salvation; and his honour is as much concerned in being believed without the least doubt concerning Purgatory, as concerning the Trinity, if both mysteries be equally, or sufficiently pro­posed as Divine Revelation.

5 Seeing therefore that the selfe same Roman Catho­lick Church, and testimony, which proposed sufficiently [Page 38]in the yeare 1516. to Luther, and all other Protestants since that time, Scripture, the mystery of the Trinity &c. to be Divine Revelation; did in the same yeare, and doth now also propose Purgatory, Transubstantion, and other points (which Protestants call not fundamentall) to be revealed by God: its evident that there is as great obligation of be­lieving without any doubt Purgatory, Transubstantiation, and others not thought fundamentalls by Protestants, as the fundamentalls. But these articles which Protestants call not fundamentall, can not be belie­ved without some doubt, if the Church be not infallible in proposing them; as they themselves must grant by force of the parity made with their fundamentall articles. Therefore the Catholick Church is as infallible in its testi­mony concerning not fundamentall articles being Divine Revelation, as it is in fundamentalls; or if not, it must be fallible in both.

6 Yet if matters be well considered, we shall finde, that its impossible to deny any article of Faith, (though not absolutely necessary, and therefore (in the opinion of Protestants) of little importance) but a necessary and fun­damentall article must be denyed together with it. There is no article of Faith more fundamentall, and necessary for salvation, then Gods veracity. They who deny Purgatory, v.g. deny Gods veracity; because they who deny any thing that is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation, deny Gods veracity, whether the matter proposed as revealed by him, be great, or small. Neither can Protestants give any other reason; why by denying the Trinity, Gods vera­city is denyed, but because the Trinity is sufficiently pro­posed as Divine Revelation. Therefore if Purgatory, or Transubstantiation be as sufficiently proposed as the Tri­nity; by denying them, and others the like, Gods veracity is also denyed. So that all articles of Faith, if sufficiently proposed, are fundamentall, and necessary for salvation.

7 My second answer to the discourse, and argument of Protestants, is, that witnesses contradicting themselves in circumstances, though of little importance, are not to be prudently credited in the maine points wherein they a­gree. The testimony of the two old Judges was not valid in the crime of adultery objected by them against Susanna, Dan. 13. because though their testimonies did agree in the crime, [Page 39]and in what was materiall to condemne her; yet they va­ried in some circumstances not materiall. What did it im­port (as to the guilt of Susanna) whether she committed adultery under a Fig-tree, or a Pine? Though it was a circumstance very indifferent, and of little importance in it selfe, yet the incoherency in it did prove that the two old mens testimonies in the maine were invalid. There­fore although not fundamentall articles were not necessa­ry for salvation, yet the incoherency in such little matters doth invalid the Catholick Churches testimony even in fundamentalls, and the maine points of Christian Religion. Therefore it must be granted that the testimony of the Ca­tholick Church either is not prudently credible, and infal­lible, in necessary, and fundamentall articles; or that it is prudently credible, and infallible in not fundamentalls. It followeth also out of the premises, that the Catholick Church can not be all Churches of Christendome, because there are not two of them whose testimonies concerning Faith do not differ, at least in not fundamentall points of Religion, and by consequence the testimony is absolutely incredible, because incoherent.

Against what hitherto hath beene said, some may object, that the Fathers unanimously testifying fundamentall arti­cles to be revealed by God, ought to be credited, though they contradict one another in matters not fundamentall. Therefore the same may be said of many dissenting Chur­ches, or Congregations of Christians; why should not the Catholick Church be composed of all Christians agreeing in the principall points of Christian Religion, though they agree not in others of lesse importance. The example of tke Babylonian Judges in the case of Susanna, can not be applyed to the Catholick Church: they were not credited by Daniel in the fact which they unanimously testified, because the circumstance wherein they varied, was so concomitant, and connected with the fact it selfe, that it was impossible to see one, and not the other. The­refore the contradicting themselves in the circumstance of the tree, did demonstrate that they never saw Susanna commit adultery. But no such connexion appeares be­tweene fundamentall, and not fundamentall articles of Christian Religion; the Trinity, or Incarnation may be suf­ficiently proposed as Divine Revelation by the testimony [Page 40]of both Protestant, and Roman Church, though Purgato­ry, or Transubstantiation be onely held by Protestants, to be onely a probable opinion of the Roman Clergy, and consequently not sufficiently proposed as Divine Revela­tion, because it wants the concurrence of a considerable part of Christianity in the testimony which it gives of those, and the like not fundamentall Tenets.

To the first part of this argument I say, that the Fathers in their greatest differences agree in submitting their jud­gements to the Sea Apostolick, or to a generall Councell, as to the visible and infallible Judge of Controversies Not to Protestant Churches, each one pretending to be Inde­pendent of the other, and of the Roman also. Such inde­pendency, and obstinacy of judgement is wholy inconsi­stent with unity of Faith, and identity of Church.

Now to the second part concerning Susanna, and the two old Judges, I answer, that all mysteries of Christian Religion are connected in the motive of beliefe; so that we can no more discover a matter of Faith without the motive, then a matter of fact without its circumstance. Wherefore the motive being the same in all, they are all united to the motive, and consequently so inseparable one from another, that denying one you deny all, as denying the motive, whereon all, and every one do rely.

If the greatnesse of the matter proposed, or the number of proponents, and not the quality of the proposall, did au­thorise, and induce the obligation of believing whatsoe­ver the Catholick Church testifieth to be Divine Revela­tion, the aforesaid argument might trouble Catholicks: but seeing that both the testimony of few, and matters not absolutely necessary for salvation, may be confirmed with supernaturall signes, and with true markes of the Catho­lick Church, and Doctrine, there is no necessity of obtru­ding upon it any Protestant Congregation, thereby to give more credit. Christians were not very many in the beginning of the primitive times; and yet they filled up the number of the Catholick Church. The Arrians were thought to be more numerous then the Catholicks, and yet it was never thought necessary, by any Orthodox, to have the concurrence of their suffrage, or testimony con­cerning Religion, and declaring what was fundamentall, and not fundamentall. I see no reason why the Catho­lick [Page 41]Church of this age should court Protestants more [...]hen the Church of the fourth and fifth age did Arrians, Nestorians &c. I am sure the Arrians were more in num­ber then Protestants, and much more learned, they had a more certaine Ordination of Priests, and Bishops, and ma­ny of them were of as good life, and conversation as any Protestants are, or were since the beginning of the pre­tended Reformation. Why therefore should Protestants be a part of the Catholick Church, and not Arrians, or Nestorians?

If Protestants be admitted as part of the Catholick Church, the Turkes, Jewes, and all others, who be­lieve there is one God, may with reason complaine, that they also are not looked upon as Catholicks. For they, and we agree in the two fundamentall articles, which onely (according the opinion of many learned Divines) are ne­cessary, necessitate medij; to wit, that there is a God, and that he is Remunerator. Turkes, and Jewes believe this, therefore they agree both with us, and Protestants in fun­damentalls. Let us all therefore be parts of the Catholick Church. And though Jewes, or Turkes be not baptized, that can not prejudice them, according the principles of Protestants; their implicit, or conditionall faith will ex­cuse them, as well as Protestants from damnation, If God revealed the necessity of Baptisme, or that Scripture is his VVord (saith a Turke) I believe both, but untill that be made cleare unto me, I am not more bound to believe either absolu­ly, and without doubt, then Protestants are to believe Transubstantiation. I see no reason why this implicite, and conditionall faith should not save Jewes, and Turkes, as well as Protestants, if the mysteries not believed by either, be equally proposed. Therefore Protestants are no more part of the Catholick Church, then Turkes, or Jewes: I am certaine we have no more need of the testimony of the one, then of the other, to establish what ought to be be­lieved as Catholick Faith, or what articles are fundamen­tall.

CHAP. VIII. VVhether any reformed, or Protestant Church of the world be the Catholick and Apostolick Church? And whether their pretended clearnesse of Scripture doth suffi­ciently propose their doctrine as Divine Revelation?

1 IN the fifth Chapter num. This defini­tion of the Church is clearly insi­nuated in Scripture Act. 1. v. 8. Luc. 24.48. Ioan. 18.37. Act. 5.32. Act. 2.32. Act. 4.33. Rom. 10. Math. 28. &c. 2. it hath beene said, that the Catholick Church is a multitude, or Congre­gation of persons, whose testimony doth so suffi­ciently propose their Doctrine, or Faith, to be Gods Word, and the true meaning thereof, that it is evidently imprudence, and infallible damnation in any person whosoever, not to acquiesce in the said testimony, and not to believe without the least doubt what it propo­seth as Divine Revelation. The testimony of the true Ca­tholick Church must not be credible onely to silly soules, that believe any thing they heare, by reason of their igno­rance, or because they were not rightly informed: it must be credible to the most prudent, and informed persons, by reason that the said testimony is confirmed with so cleare signes, and markes of Gods providence in planting, and propagating the Faith professed by the true Church, that (all circumstances considered) no informed, and pru­dent person may judge any other Church to have as much as a probable appearance of the true one, when they are compared with the Catholick.

2 How the Protestant Churches, and Reformation did beginne, hath beene said in the first Chapter; which sup­posed, let us now examine whether any person can pru­dently believe, that either the Protestant Church of Eng­land, or that of Stratzburg, or Zurick, or Geneva, be the true Catholick Church of God? The ground of the be­liefe of these, and all other reformed Churches, are redu­ced to two; one is cleare Scripture pretended against the Roman errours, (as they call them;) the other is, the private Spirit, whereby they interpret the true sense of [Page 43]Scriptures to be contrary to the Tenets, and Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church. This is all the evidence which Protestants have to prove, that each of their owne Congregations is the true Spouse of Christ, and that the Church of Rome is the VVhore of Babylon. Miracles they do not pretend to; and as for the two other signes which most of their Authors brag of, (that is, the sincere preach­ing of the Word of God, and the lawfull administration of the Sacraments) these two can not be knowne, nor per­ceived, untill that, whereupon they depend, be first known to be the true sense of Scripture, or the true Faith be knowne. But when the true Faith is knowne, we have no more need of signes to bring us to the knowledge of it, or the true Church that professeth it, then a Pilot hath of markes to be guided by into the haven, after he is within safe, and at anchor. Therefore these two signes of Prote­stant are not true signes, because they are as unknowne, and as hard to be found out as the Church it selfe, which [...]s contrary to the nature, and essence of a true signe.

3 As for the first ground of Protestancy, and Reforma­tion, which is the pretended clearnesse of Scripture against the Doctrine of the Roman Church; it can as little con­firme the testimony of the Church of England, or Zurick, &c. as the Turkes Alcoran. First they tell us that Scrip­ture is against Transubstantiation, Purgatory, worship of Ima­ges &c. We deny it, and bring (at least) as cleare texts of Scripture for our selves, as Protestants do against us. They say the words, and sense of Scripture are so cleare against our Doctrine, that none can deny them. Yet we reply, that we are not so impious, nor obstinate, as to maintaine Doctrine point blank against Gods Word, and sense. Now the question is, whether the testimony of Protestant Churches against us, or ours in our owne behalfe, and defence concerning the clearnesse of Scripture, be most credible to sober, and prudent men? I answer that the te­stimony of Catholicks of the obscurity of Scripture, a­gainst Transubstantiation, worship of Images &c. is not one­ly more credible then the testimony of Protestants to the contrary; but also that the testimony of Protestants, saying, that Scripture is cleare against Transubstantion, worship of Images, Purgatory &c. may be demonstrated to be false.

4 That this may not be thought a vaine undertaking, suppose that our controversie with Protestants concern­ing the clearnesse, and obscurity of Scripture in contro­verted points, is to be understood after all combinations and confronting of texts, which seeme to have relation, o [...] dependence one of the other. I suppose also, that som [...] Catholick Doctors have read, and considered Scripture and all controverted texts, as diligently as Protestants; a [...] may appeare by their printed Bookes, wherein they an­swer all Objections made by Luther, Calvin, Iewell &c. [...] thinke it also no discredit for Protestants to admit, tha [...] (at least) some of our learned men, and well versed in Scripture, have so much honesty, as not to conceale from the world that true sense of Scripture, which seemeth to themselves cleare and evident, after the combination, and examination of all controverted texts. But to be briefe and decline all comparisons, which are odious, let us sup­pose for the present (which Protestants ought, to take as a courtesie) that learned Protestants, and learned Catholicks, are equally honest, and equally learned; both honest, and both learned, if the contrary be not made appeare by the ensuing demonstration.

5 It is impossible for men equally learned, and equally honest, to have any controversie about the sense of any words of Scripture, if the sense be cleare, and evident. But Protestants, and Catholicks (who are supposed to be equal­ly learned, and equally honest) have controversies about the sense of such words of Scripture as concerne Transub­stantiation, worship of Images, and other controverted points. Therefore its impossible that the sense of such words of Scripture as relate to Transubstantiation &c. should be cleare, and manifestly against the Doctrine of Catholicks. Therefore the testimony of all Protestant Churches maintaining the clearnesse against them, is not onely incredible, but manifestly false. Because the testi­mony of Catholicks (though in their owne defence) is made evidently true by the controversie it selfe, a visible, and undeniable effect, that can proceede from no other cause (amongst learned, and honest men) but from the obscurity of the words, and sense, wherein their judge­ments differ. If they squable about what is cleare, both parties, or at least one, is ignorant, or not honest. We Ca­tholicks [Page 45]have no reason to thinke that all our Doctors want knowledge, and sincerity; its cleare to all Christen­ [...]ome, that in our Church we have in all parts of the world [...]oth learned, and honest men: and if Protestants thinke [...]he same of themselves, they must grant that our contro­ [...]ersies do manifestly demonstrate the obscurity of Scrip­ture.

6 Seeing Scripture is obscure, and in no place cleare against Transubstantiation, worship of Images, Purgatory &c. what ground, or warrant had the first Protestants for their pretended Reformation? would not all the world have reason to laugh at us Catholicks, if we should part with that ancient sense of Scripture in favour of Transub­stantiation, Purgatory &c. (which we received from the Church that went before us, assuring it was revealed by God) upon the bare word of Luther, Calvin, Knox, or the [...]2. persons that made the Ritual, and pretended to refor­me in Edward the VI. time, the Sacraments, both in mat­ter, forme, and number? What signes, or miracles did they shew for their extraordinary Mission, and Apostleship of reforming the Doctrine of the Catholick Church? If any man who received his Land, by inheritance from his An­cestors, ought not to part with it, if not forced by better evidence then his owne, how can we part with our Faith, and sense of Scripture (which is the ground of all our su­pernaturall inheritance, and happinesse) untill Protestants shew a better title, then the inheritance, or continuall suc­cession of our Doctrines from the Apostles? They must produce better evidence then their pretended clearnesse of Scripture. If they laugh at Quakers, notwithstanding all the texts of Scripture which they have at their fingers ends, against Protestant Doctrine; how do they imagine did Catholicks looke upon the first pretended Reformers? One advantage these new Quakers have against all Prote­stants, which Protestants have not against Catholicks; and it is, that a new Quaker may say with truth to an old or new Protestant, he hath as prudent ground, and as good evidence for his owne interpretation of Scripture, and Religion, as the Protestant hath for his; their fan­cies (the onely ground of both their Faith) being much alike, and their Mission being not warranted by any prece­dent Church. This the Protestants can not object against [Page 46]Catholicks, because we had alwayes the word, and warrant of a precedent visible Church for our interpretation of Scriptures, and Religion.

CHAP. IX. VVhether any Puritanicall Congregation be the Catholick Church, by reason of their pretended spirit?

1 THere not a trades-man, or simple woman, a­mongst the purer sort of Protestants, who do not imagine themselves to be more infallible in interpreting Scripture, then the Pope, and all the generall Councells together This infal­libility they attribute to the Spirit of God, which they all pretend to have. But this fond imagination is as easily refuted, as the clearnesse of Scripture hath beene in the for­mer Chap. because every pure Protestant, or Puritan, pre­tends to have the Spirit of God; but that Spirit contra­dicting it selfe according the diversity of Tenets which the purely inspired hold, it is impossible it should be the Spirit of God, who can not inspire contradictions. Yet they are so obstinate, that its impossible to perswade them to the con­trary, though you may clearly convince them. The Pope must be Antichrist, Catholick Kings the horns of the Beast, & religious Orders, rags of Rome wherewith the VVhore of Babylon adornes her selfe. The Puritans must onely be the Elect, the Saints, and pure Zealots of the beauteous disci­pline of Sion: which to carry on, though whole Nations be extirpated, their holy Spirit doth not onely rid them from any remorse of conscience, but assures them no worke can be more meritorious. If you inquire of them, how they know whether this spirit of theirs be good, or bad, of God, or the Divel? Calvin their Patriarch, and Ma­ster answers, that they do discerne it as clearly as they do white from black, sweet from sower, and light from dark­nesse; his proofe is the experience and testimony of eve­ry one of the faithfull Brethren, concerning the purenesse of his owne spirit.

2 This Calvinisticall and private spirit being so hidden, [Page 47]and undiscernable, can not be a sufficient, and prudent ground (at least for any man that hath it not) to believe it is the Spirit of Truth, and of the Catholick Church. Men who are not in the true Church, must be led into it by so­me credit, and exteriour signes. And though Faith be a gift of God, yet it is communicated by preaching, and hearing, Rom. 10. We do not deny that God must helpe all Catholicks interiourly with his supernaturall grace, and spirit; but the difference between the Puritan, and Ca­tholick spirit, is, that the Puritan spirit inspireth a beliefe contrary to reason; the Catholick spirit inspires a beliefe non contrary, but agreable to reason. Though Christian Faith be above reason, it is not unreasonable. But it can not be agreable to reason that any person believe a Puri­tanicall spirit without any more proofe of the goodnesse of it, then a Puritans word, against a sense of Scripture which hath beene continued in the Roman Churches sin­ce the primitive times, as is evident by tradition, testimo­ny of Fathers, and acknowledged by the Magdeburg Cen­turies, and other Protestant Writers. Therefore the private spirit can not be a sufficient proposall of the true Faith, or a credible, and convincing signe of the true Church.

3 Another proofe that no private spirits interpretation of Scripture can be the true one, being contrary to the pu­blick testimony of the Church which went before it, and Puritans pretend to reforme; may be borrowed from Saint Peter, who giveth to understand, Pet. 1.20. that no private interpre­tation can be the true sense of Scripture. The reason is cleare, because there is none (if not confirmed in grace) who may not be an obstinate Heretick against the true sense of Scripture in controverted texts; but no man can be obstinate against his owne private interpretation, and the sense of his private spirit. Therefore he can not be an Heretick, if the private interpretation of Scripture against the publick testimony of the precedent, or present Church which he impugneth, be the true meaning, and sense of Gods Word.

4 Perhaps Puritans will grant that its impossible for any of them to be an Heretick, seeing their spirit is infal­lible. If this be granted, its also impossible for any other to be an Heretick, or obstinate against their spirit, or inter­pretation; because he who is obstinate, may be convin­ced; [Page 48]and its not possible to convince any man but by cleare reason, or at least by lawfull witnesses. Cleare rea­son Puritans can not pretend for their spirit, because its a­gainst reason to believe it. Lawfull witnesses for it there can be none, or no more then one; which is not enough, nor allowed as lawfull in a mans owne case. Though eve­ry Puritan giveth not onely a testimony of his owne, but also of his Brethrens spirit, yet he is no lawfull witnesse for any other mans spirit; because he hath no better evidence, or ground for the testimony he gives, then the other mans owne word in commendation of his owne spirit; he neither seeth the spirit of the other, nor any signe where­by it may be made credible; onely he may witnesse that the man whose spirit it is, sayeth, it is of God; but one mans word, in his owne case, is no sufficient evidence for a lawfull testimony. Therefore there are no lawfull witnesses for the private spirit, and consequently, none can be obstinate against us, because none can be convin­ced that it is of God. Whence it followeth, that the spirit can be no sufficient proposall of Gods Word, or sense; and therefore no inspired Congregation of Protestants can be the Catholick Church.

CHAP. X. VVhether that Congregation of persons which live in communion with, and subjection to the Roman Church, be the Catholick and true Church of God?

1 THis question seemeth to have beene resolved by what is said in former Chapters. Because i [...] there be a Catholick Church, Vide sum­mam Con­c [...]liorum A.F. longo in Con [...]il. [...]or [...]n, [...] [...] [...]. and that is no [...] all Congregations of Christians taken toge­ther, nor any Protestant Church in particular, the dispute can onely be now between the Greek Church, and the Roman; but the Grecians having so many times al­tered their Faith, so many of their ancient Patriarchs be­ing condemned Hereticks, and all their Church being le­gally convicted of Schisme, and Heresie, in three generall [Page 49]Councells, of Florence, Lions, and the Lateran, they can not pretend to be the true Church, which never erred I do not speake of that part of the Greeke Church which communicates with us Roman Catholicks, because that is part of the Roman. But suppose the Roman Church were not the Catholick, I see not what advantage Protestants may have by pleading for the Grecians, seeing these agree not with them, but are altogether against the pretended Reformation, and condemne it as Heresie, as appeares by the answer of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Pro­testants of Germany, mentioned by Bellarmine lib. 3. de Eu­char. cap. 21. in fine.

2 To prove therefore that the Roman Church is the true Catholick, it must be made appeare, that it proposeth sufficiently its Doctrine of Faith, as Divine Revelation, this sufficient proposall can not be done by cleare and evident reason, because the mysteries of Christian Religion are above humane capacity. Therefore it must be done (ac­cording to what hath beene said in the 4. Chap.) by autho­rity, and the testimony of lawfull witnesses. But lawfull witnesses in matters of Faith, are onely they, whose testi­mony hath beene confirmed by miracles, as hath beene demonstrated in the 2. Chap. Therefore we must prove also miracles, if we intend to prove that the Roman Church is the whole Catholick, and that it proposeth suf­ficiently its Doctrine as Divine Revelation. Now to the proofe of the assertion.

3 That Doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Divine Re­velation, which is delivered to us as such by the testimo­ny of lawfull witnesses, confirmed by miracles. But the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is delivered to us as Di­vine Revelation by the testimony of lawfull witnesses, and their testimony is confirmed by miracles. Therefore its sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation, and by con­sequence the Church of Rome is the true Catholick

4 If the Minor, or second proposition be proved, my intent is concluded. That the Roman Church hath law­full witnesses of its Doctrine to be Divine Revelation, hath this difficulty: A lawfull witnesse requires not one­ly knowledge of what he testifieth, but also honesty; both qualities are necessary, an honest foole being as lit­tle to be credited as a knowing knave. But how can the [Page 50]Roman Church now extant in the 17. age of Christianity, have lawfull witnesses of the Doctrine, and sense of Scrip­ture, which Christ and the Apostles taught the world so long since? Though honesty can not be denyed to many Roman Catholicks, yet the knowledge what the Apostles taught, which is required for a lawfull witnesse of the true Church, can not be granted to any, seeing none is now living on earth, that conversed with the Apostles. This argument doth equally impugne all Churches, yet none can answer it but we Roman Catholicks.

5 It concernes all the world, even our very adversaries, to grant, that the Roman Catholicks have lawfull wit­nesses with sufficient knowledge of what Religion, and sense of Scripture was taught by the Apostles in the primi­tive Church, nay which is more, that no other Church pretending to Reformation, can have sufficient know­ledge required for lawfull witnesses of the true Religion, sense of Scripture, and Doctrine of the primitive Church. If the Roman Church hath not sufficient knowledge for lawfull witnesses of Christ, and the Apostles Doctrine, no hereditary King, or Prince, can have a title, or right to his crowne; because the right descended to them by inheri­tance, doth depend upon a lawfull testimony averring, that they are the true heires of such a man, who reigned perhaps three or four hundred yeares ago. Henry the IV. of France proved himselfe by lawfull witnesses to be the heire of Saint Lewis But who couldbe a lawfull witnesse that Henry the Great descended of Saint Lewis? All France did give a lawfull testimony of it, because it was a con­stant tradition in the whole Kingdome, descended from Saint Lewis his time to this present age. That is to say, in every Century, or age, there were honest men, and lawfull witnesses who testified, that Henry the IV: Ancestors des­cended from Saint Lewis; though one onely age could re­member, or see Saint Lewis, yet the next ensuing did see the first, and heard their testimony; the third did see the second &c. In every age did live men whose testimony might be relyed upon. It must be granted therefore by all, that the knowledge which is grounded upon a conti­nuall, and never interrupted tradition, is sufficient for law­full witnesses.

6 That the Roman Catholick Church hath a conti­nuall, [Page 51]and never interrupted tradition of its Faith, and sense of Scripture being taught by Christ, and the Apostles, can not be denyed by our adversaries, it being evident to the world, that they who contradicted any article of this Faith we now professe, in former ages, were looked upon, and condemned as Hereticks; which is an infallible argu­ment that we, in every age, received our Doctrine from the former not as the word of men, but as the Word of God, or as Divine Revelation: for, if it were not believed as Divine Revelation, why should we condemne men as Hereticks, because they denyed it? Neither do Protestants deny, that we believed our tradition, and the testimony of our Church, to be grounded upon Divine Revelation; they onely say we were mistaken, and that both our tradi­tion, and testimony of the Roman Church was fallible. But then we urge, that they acknowledge both were infal­lible in delivering to them the Scripture, and testifying that it was the Word of God: therefore in delivering, and testifying all the rest, seeing the same testimony deli­vering many things together, must be of equall authority in all, and equally believed by them who accept of it as a lawfull proofe. All our pretended Reformers had no other ground in the yeare 1517. to believe Scripture as Divine Revelation, but the testimony of the Roman Church. Therefore they ought to believe all the rest, or not to be­lieve Scripture.

7 I said, it concernes also our adversaries to grant, that their reformed Churches have no lawfull witnesses in matters of Faith; because there can not be that sufficient knowledge which is required in a lawfull witnesse of Faith, without tradition, whereby it may appeare, that the Faith and sense of Scripture of this age doth agree with that of the primitive Church. If once our adversaries acknow­ledge lawfull witnesses of things past long since, without a constant, and never interrupted tradition, every man whose spirit of ambition moves him, may pretend to be true heire of any hereditary crowne, or estate; and with­out further proofe then his owne word, and spirit, or some obscure text of Scripture, will exclude Kings and others, whose rights are grounded upon tradition. But if tradition be so necessary to preserve, and make credible the testi­mony of men in matters of estates, and rights in the Com­mon-wealth, [Page 52]it can not be superfluous to make credible the testimony of men concerning matters of Faith.

8 It remaines now we prove that the testimony of the Roman Catholick Church hath beene confirmed with su­pernaturall signes, or miracles. But seeing there are in the Roman Church lawfull witnesses who prove, that the Faith which they now professe, is the same with that of the primitive Church, miracles also are proved by the sa­me witnesses, it being granted by Protestants themselves, that miracles were wrought in the primitive Church to confirme the Faith, which Christ, and his Apostles taught. Yet in the Roman Catholick Church there are now law­full witnesses, and have beene in every age since Christs preaching, that there have beene miracles done in confir­mation of the Roman Faith. This is evident to all who read the Ecclesiasticall Histories of present, and past times. Neither can our adversaries deny, that we have lawfull witnesses for miracles now wrought in our Church (even in confirmation of that Doctrine wherein we differ from them) and reported by so credible testimonies, See the 13. Chap. that it were imprudence in any person whosoever to deny them, which is enough to propose sufficiently our Doctrine as Divine Revelation.

But Protestants do not believe our miracles, because they imagine that they are against Scriptures, that is, a­gainst their owne interpretation of it, and that some mi­racles have beene false, and forged. We do not say that all things which the common people thinke to be mira­cles, are really true miracles; but we affirme that true mi­racles there are in our Church, and very frequent, confir­ming that very Doctrine which Protestants reject: the for­gery or knavery of some particular wicked men in feig­ning miracles, can not prejudice all, especially such as are seene, and experimented by persons of knowne integrity, and learning, able to discerne betweene true and false mi­racles: otherwise it will follow, that all the new Testa­ment must be called in question, or denyed to be Gods Word, because Saint Thomas his pretended Ghospell, or Nicodemus his writings are condemned as forged, or Apo­cryphall.

That no reformed Church of Protestants can have law­full witnesses to propose sufficiently their Doctrine as Di­vine [Page 53]Revelation, is evident; because for the space of 1500. yeares, they were without any visible Church, or tradition; therefore their witnesses also are invisible, and by conse­quence not lawfull, or credible. Fox and others made a certaine Catalogue of men who opposed the Doctrine of the Roman Church in former ages; but they were known Hereticks, and did neither agree amongst themselves, nor with Protestants, in their Tenets, or Religion, as hath beene demonstrated by Father Persons in his Examination of Fox his Kalendar, and by many others.

9 I conclude therefore, that seeing Protestants grant there is, and hath alwayes beene a Catholick Church upon earth, and that Church must have lawfull witnesses testify­ing their Doctrine to be Divine Revelation; it being evi­dent, that no Congregation of men can produce any such lawfull witnesses, but the Roman Catholicks (amongst whom I include also them of the Greeke Church who a­gree with us) its also evident, that there can be no Church Catholick but the Roman.

CHAP. XI. VVhether Transubstantiation, and the lawful­nesse of the worship of Images be sufficiently proposed by the testimony of the Roman Ca­tholick Church, as Divine revelation? and whether Protestants have any lawfull exceptions against them?

1 THere are so many Bookes printed in defence of these Catholick Tenets, that I judge it su­perfluous to treate of them ex professo. I will onely answer some exceptions that Prote­stants have made against them to my selfe, in diverse occasions. That the Roman Church doth propose these articles sufficiently as Divine Revelation, is cleare; because it proposeth them by the same testimony, and confirmed by the sames signes, whereby it proposeth Scripture to be Gods Word: this last proposall Prote­stants themselves grant to be so sufficient, that no man [Page 54]may in prudence deny it. Therefore the same must be said of all the rest, and in particular of Transubstantiation, and worship of Images.

2 But let us heare the exceptions of Protestants against each of these mysteries. Against Transubstantiation they object the evidence of our senses; it never being read in Scripture (say they) that God by a miracle deceived mens senses, or made appeare to them one thing for another. Moyses and Aarons rod in Egypt, was really converted into a serpent, and seemed so also to the senses of the specta­tors. The Magicians rods seemed to be serpents to the senses, but really were not. From hence they conclude, that by false miracles, and illusions the senses may be de­ceived, but never by true supernaturall signes, or mira­cles. Against Transubstantiation they object also novelty of the word, and of the thing defined, which was in the Councell of Lateran first, and after in the Councell of Trent.

3 As for worship of Images they looke upon it as ido­latry, or at least as a thing inclining the common people to it, and therefore both dangerous, and unlawfull. Some object also novelty against it, the first time (say they) wor­ship of Images was heard of, being some 800. yeares ago, in the second Councell of Nice.

4 Now to their first exception, and the evidence of their senses against Transubstantiation, I answer, that the senses are not deceived, because (according to common Philosophie) their proper object (which are the accidents) do remaine. But seeing divers both Catholicks, and Pro­testants do deny that there be any accidents separable from their proper substance, my second answer is, That there are two sorts of miracles. Some miracles are wrought, not to be seene, but to be believed; because they are not one­ly miracles, but also mysteries of Christian Faith. The In­carnation, or Union of God and man in one person is one of the greatest miracles, yet it was not done to be seene, or manifested to our senses in this life, but (being concealed from them) to be believed. The miracle of Transubstan­tiation is called by Christ himselfe Mysterium Fidei, a myste­ry of Faith; it was not done to be perceived by our senses, but to be believed by our understanding.

5 Other miracles there are which have been wrought [Page 55]by God, to the end they may move us to believe, not themselves, (for they are seene, and manifest) but some other revealed truth; these miracles are patent to our sen­ses, because they give us sufficient evidence, that the my­steries of Faith may prudently be credited as Divine Reve­lation. Such was Moyses his miracles in Egypt; the rod was not turned into a serpent, that Pharao, and the Egyptians should believe what they did see with their eyes, but that they should believe somewhat else, to wit, that Moyses was sent by God.

6 Supposing this difference betweene miracles, there can be no difficulty in answering the objection made by Protestants against Transubstantiation. Miracles which are not wrought principally to the end that they may be be­lieved by Faith, but rather to the end they may be evi­dently seene, and by their meanes other mysteries belie­ved, can not deceive the senses; because then they would be of no use, Gods providence, and end in working them, would be frustrated. Miracles which are together myste­ries of Faith, and are done that they may be believed, and not seene, must not appeare evidently to our senses, but rather be concealed from them; otherwise we should have evidence, and beliefe of one thing in the same time. The mystery of Transubstantiation is a miracle not to be evi­dently seene, but to be believed. Therefore its no mervaile that it be not patent to our senses: when Christ turned water into wine, he did it in such a manner, that the sense perceived it to be wine, because from that evident and sensible miracle, they might inferre, and believe, that he was the true Messias. But when he changed bread, and wine into his owne Body, and Bloud, there was no appea­rance of change, it seemed to remaine still bread, because the insensible change of one substance to another, was a mystery to be credited, and not to be seene. The Manna (which was a figure of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar) did savour to the Jewes whatsoever they fancied, though it remained the same substance it was before: I see there­fore no reason why we Christians should give more cre­dit to our palat, then the Jewes, who had as much rea­son to doubt of the Manna, as we of the Sacrament; nay we have lesse, because Christs words are so absolutely, and cleare, This is my Body: if it be his Body, it is not bread; [Page 56]being impossible that Christs Body should be bread.

7 Seeing God will not have the mystery of Transub­stantiation be evident to our senses, its not to be thought either superfluous or incredible, that the species, or ap­pearance of bread and wine, worke the same effects, which their substance would have done, if it were present: for, God is as coherent in supernaturall things, as in naturall; its necessary therefore for the concealment of this myste­ry, and for the merit of Christian Faith, that no want of the substance of bread, and wine, may be perceived in the Sacrament by any curious experience of men, who would eate, and drinke onely conscerated species. The not mani­festing this great mystery to our senses, requireth, that the same effects be worked by the species, as by bread, and wine.

8 Some Protestants thinke it a contradiction that one body be present in many places together. But all Catho­licks hold that Christs Body, and Bloud, have a spirituall presence in the Sacrament, which once granted, there can be no difficulty in believing that our Saviours Body, and Bloud, may be in many places at the same time; because its granted to all things which have a spirituall presence.

9 If any inquires, how can a body have a spirituall pre­sence? I answer him with demanding, how can a spirit have a corporall presence? How can an Angel have the appearance, and presence of a young man? whereof there are many examples in Scriptures Whence it followeth, that our senses may be deceived, or (to speake more pro­perly) may give occasion to the understanding to be decei­ved, not onely in the mystery of Transubstantiation, but al­so in others, expressed in Scripture; which is contrary to what our adversaries object. Angells seemed to the eyes of Abraham, Iosue, Tobias, and others to be young men, and yet they were not men, but spirits.

10 As for their saying that Transubstantiation is a no­velty brought into the Church by the Councell of Lateran an. 1215. its a mistake; because the very condemning of of Berengarius as an Heretick, for impugning this myste­ry, doth demonstrate it was no novelty; but believed as an atticle of Faith, not onely before the Councell of Late­ran, but since the Apostles. For otherwise, how were it possible that the Patriarchs of Hierusalem, and Constanti­nople, [Page 57]70. Metropolitanes, 400. Bishops, and 800. Con­ventuall Priors, who were present at that Councell, should all agree to declare Transubstantiation to have beene revea­led by God to the primitive Church, and yet the same to be at the same time invented, when the Councell defined it? The Church doth not make new articles of Faith when it defines any controverted Doctrine, it onely declares, that such Doctrine was delivered to the primitive Church, though perhaps it was not proposed generally to all Churches, and Catholicks; it groundeth the definition up­on Scripture, or Tradition. The same which Protestants object against the word Transubstantiation, did the Arrians against Consubstantiality in the Councell of Nice, saying it was a novelty, and not in Scripture.

11 The lawfulnesse of worshipping Images is sufficient­ly proposed as Divine Revelation by the second Councell of Nice in these words: VVe do unanimously professe to stick to Ecclesiasticall traditions which are in force eather by custome, or writing; whereof one is the making of Images, Which is agreable to the Ghospell, and profitably invented for the beliefe of Gods true Incarnation. This supposed, following the beaten rode, and the steps of our Divine, and holy Fathers, and obser­ving the tradition of the Catholick Church, wherein the holy Ghost doth inhabitate, we define that holy Images ought to be worshipt &c. of Christ, of our Lady, Angells, Saints &c. For so the discipline of our holy Fathers doth conclude, as also the tradition of the Catholick Church, which from one end to the other hath received the Ghospell.

12 Notwithstanding this cleare testimony of the Ca­tholick Church. Protestants confound the worship of I­mages with idolatry, not distinguishing between an Image, and an Idol ( Idol signifies the likenesse of a false God; Ima­ge is the likenesse of any thing that doth, or may exist) translating in the English Bible Image for Idol, and make the poore ignorant people believe, that we Catholicks dare not set downe in our Cathechismes the first Com­mandement at full, as it is in Scripture; because it forbid­deth worship of Images: whereas out of the very text it appeares, that God forbids onely the likenesse of any thing to be adored as God, or made to that purpose. In Canisius the Jesuite his Cathechisme is set downe the first Com­mandement as it is in Scripture. In all other Cathechismes [Page 58]the substance of the first Commandement is set downe: for in adoring but one God is implyed, we must not wor­ship any other things as Gods. It might be as well obje­cted against our Cathechismes, that in the last Comman­dement we put in briefe onely these words, Thou shalt not covet another mans goods; omitting oxes, and asses &c. which these wise Objectors put us in minde of. Cathechismes, be­ing briese instructions for childrens memory, require the shortest expression of the substance of every Commande­ment.

13 But when Catholicks urge Protestants with the same Commandement, because they have their owne statues, and pictures made, which are as much prohibited by the Commandement, as the statues, or Images of Saints; they can finde an explanation for the text, and distinguish be­tweene civill, and religious worship: we honour (say they Kings, and Princes Images with a civill worship onely, and not religiously, as ye do the Images of Saints: which re­ligious worship is due to God alone. I would faine know why can not religious worship have a latitude, and be mo­re, and lesse, supreme, and inferror, as civill worship hath Its civility not onely to worship Kings, but also noble men and others; ho are their servants; but the supreme civil [...] worship is due onely to the King himselfe; an inferior de [...] gree is due to his servants, to every one according his cal­ling. What inconveniency is it to hold the same (with proportion) of religious worship. The supreme religiou [...] worship, which is called Latria, is due to God alone; why may not there be an inferior degree of religious worshi [...] due to Saints, and their Images; religious worship being onely an exterior acknowledgement of some religious, o [...] supernatur all excellency in the person worshipt: Saint Po­ter is knowne because he was a Saint, and not because h [...] was a Fisher. Sure Protestants will not deny, that th [...] Saints who enjoy God, have a supernaturall excellenc [...] bestowed upon them by his Divine Majesty. Therefor [...] the Saints (and by consequence their Images) may be ho [...] noured, with a religious worship of an inferior degree.

14 As for the danger of idolatry amongst the commo [...] people, we Catholicks have no reason to apprehend any having so long experience of the contrary. We resort mo­re to the Church, or Chappell where one Image is, the [Page 59]another, according the graces which we receive our sel­ [...]s, or the miracles which we credibly heare to be done [...] others. To perswade us not to believe any such mira­ [...]es, is to take away all beliefe, and society amongst men. [...]s evident some miracles done at these Images are true, [...]ough some may be false. For its impossible that all the [...]atholicks, and many Hereticks, should conspire toge­ [...]er to deceive the world, and damne themselves, for a [...]ing which (if false) imports most of them nothing. If [...]ere be miracles, the worship of Images can not be un­ [...]wfull, because God induceth not men by miracles to [...]nne; rather there is an obligation of believing, that it is [...]ry lawfull. And as for the danger of idolatry, there is [...] more in worshipping Images, then there is, that the [...]mmon people of England should cry up an Image, or atue of the King, for their King, and rebell with it a­ [...]inst himselfe.

CHAP. XII. VVhether Protestancy be Heresie?

BY Protestancy I meane all, and every point of that Doctrine of Protestants, wherein they dif­fer from any Tenet which Roman Catholicks hold as a point of Faith. The articles of Chri­stian Religion in which they, and we agree, [...]n not be properly called Protestancy, because they are in­fferent to both, and were believed by us Roman Catho­ [...]ks long before any Protestants were seene, or heard of [...] the world. Most of the articles of Protestancy, are ne­ [...]tive, that is, not ot believe Transubstantiation, Purgatory, [...] lawfulnesse of praying to Saints, or worshipping them in [...]ir Images, &c. so that to be a Protestant, is, not to be­ve. Protestants on the other side say, that to be a Ca­ [...]lick, is, to overbelieve, and to be a Protestant, is, to be­ [...]ve onely that which is necessary. But then we aske, who all be Judge of what is necessary, and superfluous? Not [...]man Catholicks, say they, because they are a part, and [...]cerned. By the same reason we may exclude all Prote­ [...]nts from judging, and not onely Protestants, but all [Page 60]Christians, because every Church of Christendome pre­tends to believe all that is necessary; all therefore and ev [...] ­ry one may be excepted against, as a part, and concerne [...] So that if Roman Catholicks be excluded from determ [...] ning what is necessary to be believed, we must be judge by the Turks, Pagans, or Jewes, in the controversies [...] Christian Religion, and of Scripture. Me thinks we Ca [...] tholicks are beter conditioned, more prudent, and mo [...] provident in our beliefe, then Protestants; because thoug [...] we should believe too much, we can not be damned fo [...] want of necessary beliefe; we may lend some to o [...] Neighbours, and reserve to our selves as much as is nece [...] sary. But Protestants stand upon such nice termes wit [...] God, and the Church, that if they come not short of wh [...] is necessary (as twenty to one they will) their Neighbou [...] shall be nothing the better for their beliefe.

2 I might urge this argument in a serious way, and v [...] home, if this were its proper place. But to returne to th [...] question, whether Protestancy be Heresie? I answer, th [...] all opinions, or Tenets, whether negative, or affirmativ [...] that Protestants hold contrary to that which the Rom [...] Catholick Church believes as an article of Faith, are H [...] resies; which I demonstrate in this manner. Whatsoev [...] opinion is contrary to any Doctrine sufficiently propose as Divine Revelation, is Heresie; but all Protestants pr­per Tenets, or opinions are contrary to some Doctri [...] sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation Therefore [...] Protestants proper Tenets, or opinions are Heresies. Th [...] first proposition is granted by our very adversaries, an [...] hath beene proved in the 3. and 4. Chap. The second [...] cleare by what may be borrowed from the same Chapter and from the so. and I apply to our question by this sy [...] logisme. All the proper Teners of Protestancy are co [...] trary to some Doctrine which the Roman Catholi [...] Church doth testifie to be Divine Revelation; (that is, [...] have beene revealed by God to the primitive Church;) b [...] the testimony of the Roman Catholick Church is a suf [...] cient proposall of any Doctrine to be Divine Revelatio [...] Therefore all Tenets, or opinions proper to Protestanc [...] are contrary to some Doctrine sufficiently proposed Divine Revelation.

3 If the second proposition of this last syllogisme, [Page 61]argument, be demonstrated, Protestancy is demonstrated [...]o be Heresie. Therefore I prove it (in my judgement) [...]ery clearly. That testimony is a sufficient proposall of Sods revealing any Doctrine to the primitive Church, which testimony is confirmed by miracles, and hath con­ [...]inued without interruption, being exhibited in every [...]ge (from the time of the Apostles to this present) by ho­ [...]est, and knowing men. But the testimony of the Roman Catholick Church hath all this. Therefore its a sufficient [...]toposall of any Doctrine to be Divine Revelation, or to [...]ave beene revealed by God to the primitive Church. That the testimony of the Roman Church is confirmed by [...]iracles even in those very points of Doctrine wherein [...]rotestants differ from us, is so evident, that no prudent [...]an, if not obstinate, can deny, and is particularly proved [...] the 13. Chap. For how is it possible, that all the world [...]as I said before) should conspire to abuse Protestants, and [...]amne themselves by feigning miracles; and that, not [...]nely in this age, but in every age since the primitive Church. The forging of some is no prudent proose that [...]ll are forged If there are no miracles in the Roman Ca­ [...]olick Church in confirmation of Transubstantiation, Pur­ [...]atory, Worship of Images &c. there is no Faith to be given my men whosoever.

4 Now it remaines onely to be proved, that there hath [...]een a continuall succession of honest, and learned men [...]f the Roman Church in every age since the primitive Church to this present, who did beare witnesse that the Doctrine which every respective former age delivered to [...]he next ensuing, and we believe as Faith, was revealed by [...]od to the first Christians. But this being evident by the [...]ondemning as Hereticks all those who in any age held [...]rotestant Tenets, and being also proved in the 10. Chap. [...]s superfluous, and troublesome to repeate it here againe. Whosoever desires to be informed more at large, and of [...]very point in particular, let him read the Protestant Apo­ [...]gy for the Roman Church. There he will finde what I [...]ay to be so cleare, that our very learned Adversaries are [...]orced to acknowledge it, and recurre to that old, and [...]esperate shift of Hereticks, who say, that the word of [...]en is not to be believed, as if the word of the same men who assure us that Scripture is the Word of God, were [Page 62]credible in that, but in nothing else. Of this we have sai [...] enough before in the 5. Chap.

5 Yet I will not omit to argue against Protestants a [...] Saint Augustin did against Jewes, and Pagans with that in [...] genious Dilemma, whereof I made mention in the 3. Chap Either the first learned, and honest men who adored th [...] Blessed Sacrament, believing there was no bread in it worshipt Images, &c. did see miracles to confirme thes [...] pretended novelties, which crept in (as Protestant say) t [...] the Church; or they did see no miracles to confirme them. If they did see miracles, I have my intent. If they did se [...] none, I have also my intent, because the greatest of all m [...] racles is, that wise, and learned men should without an [...] miracles seene, adore for God that which seemes to be piece of bread, and worship a statue, or picture; which [...] not onely contrary (as Protestants say) to cleare Scriptur [...] but also to common sense, and reason. By the same Di em [...] ma I prove that every point of the Doctrine of Catholick against Protestants: was sufficiently proposed as Divin [...] Revelation. Either it was sufficiently proposed to the fir [...] Christians who believed it, or not. If it was, Protestanc [...] is Heresie. If it was not, how is it possible, that not one­ly the first who believed, or taught these superfluities, bu [...] all the wise, and honest men of the world for many age before the pretended Reformation, should impose upon themselves unnecessary articles, as necessary, and thereb [...] betray posterity, and damne themselves, for believin [...] things which had no ground in Scripture, nor were testi [...] fied to them by any credible testimonies of the Christian [...] who went before them, to be Divine Revelation? All tha [...] Protestants can say in their owne defence hath beene con [...] futed in the 3.4.7.8. and 9. Chap, for all must be reduce [...] to three heads: 1. That Scripture, and Fathers are clea [...] against Roman Catholicks. 2. That the private spirit i [...] for Protestants 3. That Protestants are neither obstinate nor Hereticks, because they do not believe that God re [...] vealed Transubstantiation, Purgatory, &c. All these thre [...] evasions, and more have beene confuted in the foreme [...] tioned Chapters, to which I remit the Reader.

6 I do not see what exception Protestants can adde t [...] their former against the testimony of the Roman Cath [...] lick Church, unlesse they say, I that it is not make an [...] [Page 63]thing prudently credible as Divine Revelation, because we Catholicks can not make appeare by reason how what we say, is true, as, how accidents can be without their pro­per subject &c. but upon this score they may as well re­ject the mystery of the Trinity, Incarnation, as Transub­stantiation. The Catholick Church is not the Author of the Doctrine it proposeth, its onely a witnesse, as Christ himselfe declared, when he sent the Apostles to preach, Ye shall be my witnesses in Hierusalem &c. Act. 1. Onely God who is the Author of Catholick Doctrine, can give a cleare reason of some mysteries; and though the Church can not, its testimony ought to be believed. Many Clownes who unanimously say they have seene an Eclyps, or extra­vagant inundation of the Sea, deserve credit, though they be no Philosophers, or Mathematicians, and consequently can not give any cleare reason of an Eclyps &c. Therefore the testimony of Catholicks ought not to be rejected con­cerning Transubstantiation, or any other mystery, though they can not give cleare reason for it; its enough for them to recurre to Gods omnipotency.

7 But how (say Protestants) can we be called Here­ticks, or obstinate, if we are content to submit our judge­ments, and believe what is sufficiently proposed as Gods Revelation? We onely deny, that the Roman Church doth propose sufficiently as Gods Revelations their De­crees in the Councells of Trent, and Lateran &c. To this I have answered in the third Chap. and now againe do af­firme, that there is no Prince who doth propose his com­mands, and sense concerning any matter, more sufficient­ly by his subordinate Ministers, then God doth his Word, and sense of Scripture, by the Roman Church. Because there hath not beene onely a continuall succession of this Doctrine we professe, from the primitive Church to this present (which neither the Greeke Church, See Chap. 9. nor any other can pretend to, having changed the Doctrine of Faith mo­re then once;) but because there do appeare such evident signes of the Roman Churches being appointed by God to declare to all the world the true Faith, and sense of Scripture, that it must be obstinacy in the highest degree, to doubt of the sufficiency of the Roman Churches pro­posall, and testimony. First the conversion of Nations by Roman Catholicks in all parts of the world is evident. Se­condly, [Page 64]no other Church doth pretend to miracles, but we alone. Thirdly, we heare of no eminent sanctity con­firmed by prophecy, and other supernaturall signes in any Church but in ours. Fourthly, there is no unity, peace, or end of controversies but amongst us, all submitting our judgements in matters of Faith to any generall Councell approved by the Pope. Fifthly, no Church hath continuall tradition, and succession of Doctrine, but we Roman Ca­tholicks.

8 All these signs are marks of the true Catholick Church, and are so obvious to our senses, that idiots may take no­tice of them; if they will but inquire, and spend as much time in that, as in reading the History of their owne Countrey, or of informing themselves of their Ancestors. This is the true reason why no Protestants can pretend ignorance of the true Church, nor rely upon the word of their Ministers. If they inquire not, they will be damned for being ignorant. If after due inquiry made, they beco­me not Roman Catholicks, they will be damned for He­resie, not onely for denying the truth of our Doctrine, and Faith, but also the sufficiency of its proposal He is a rebell who denyeth, that the accustomed exterior signes of the Princes commission, and authority, which are seene in his Officers, is not a sufficient proposall of his will and plea­sure, to have the said Officers obeyed as his Judges, or De­puties &c. I see no reason why the same ought not to be grated (with proportion) in our case; unlesse Protestants thinke that Princes ought to be more respected in their Ministers, then God in his Church; or that there is greater evidence required to believe that God doth speake by his Church, then to believe that Princes do speake by their subordinate Ministers. Truly though this greater evidence were required, Protestants can have no excuse, because the signes of the Roman Church are greater evidence, that it alone is the true one, by which God declares, and speak­eth his minde, then the signes of any Magistrate in a Com­mon-wealth, or Kingdome, are of the true regall autho­rity of the said Magistrate, by which Kings, and Princes de­clare their minde to the Subjects. See more in the 4. and 5. Chapters.

CHAP. XIII. VVhether any Protestants may be saved?

1 THough Protestancy be Heresie, all Protestants are not Hereticks; there is a difference (saith Saint Austin) betweene Hereticks, and them who believe Hereticks. The greatest wits may be misinformed, if they rely upon other mens informations.

2 To the question proposed I answer, that such Prote­stants as never had any occasion to doubt, whether their owne Religion be the true one, may be saved, if they ne­ver committed a mortall sinne; because they are baptised, and dye in the grace of God, which they received in the Baptisme. Now whether there be any Protestants who never committed a mortall sinne, the Lord knowes; this I am sure of, that there are very few in any part of the world, who have not great reason, and many occasions to doubt of their owne Religion. Because amongst them, or neare unto the places where they live, there are Catho­licks; who (as Christians and true Friends) advertise them of the falshood, and novelty of their Sect. And though the Protestant Ministers assure them, that they are in a safe way of salvation; when others as honest, and learned as the Ministers tell them the contrary, they are bound, under paine of damnation, at least to examine the truth, and grounds of both Religions, according their capacity, and possibility; which if they do sincerely, that is, setting aside all regard of honour, interest, conveniency, and all other temporall affections, which obstruct the understanding, God in his providence will give them knowledge of the truth, and resolution to embrace it.

3 But in case Protestants contemne the charitable war­nings given them by Catholicks, of the Schisme, and He­resie wherein they are involved, and neglect Gods inspira­tions of examining the truth; there is no question to be made that if they dye in that condition, they are damned; because though they were brought up Protestants, they had reason to doubt of their Religion, seeing as honest, and [Page 66]learned men as those that gave them their education, and instruction, advertised them seriously of their danger. And not to examine whether the danger be reall, or not, in a matter of so high concernment, is not excusable; no igno­rance can be pretended, after they are admonished by so­ber, and honest men.

I conclude therefore, that onely such silly soules as be­lieve the Pope hath hornes, and the Jesuits cloven feete, can be excused by ignorance from damnation, for not believing as Catholicks doe; because if any such be, they are so sim­ple, that they believe all which the Minister sayes, as Gods Word, and that nothing ought to be called in question. How many Ministers there be, who deserve this credit, and esteeme of infallibility, even amongst the least prying, and simple people, let their owne Parishes, and the world defi­ne. This I dare say, that there are few Protestants who commit not at least one mortall sinne; and that is enough to damne them, though their invincible ignorance (as schoole men speake) may excuse their want of true Faith. But the want of Charity is as damnable as the want of Faith; and we have no reason to judge that God will do so extraordinary a favour to Protestants, who are out of the Church, and have not the helpe of the true Sacraments, as to give them an act of contrition in the last houre.

4 I have often said, that I can not but admire to see any person of solid judgement, and good understanding, a Protestant. The more I consider the grounds, beginning, and progresse of these new Religions, the more I am con­firmed in my admiration What matter can then be of greater wonder, then to see wise men preferre the testi­mony of some few wanton, and dissolute Priests, and Friars, to the testimony of the grave, and ancient Fathers of the Catholick Roman Church? Let the Councell of La­teran be confronted with Cranmer, and the six or seven Ministers, who invented the English Church, and with the Parliament that confirmed it. Let both the Councells of Lateran, and that of Trent, be compared with the petty Assemblies of Ministers in the English Protestant Church, or in the Kirke of Scotland, Dort, or any other, pretending Reformation. Shall a few Ministers know better the Ca­tholick tradition, the sense of Scripture, and Fathers, then the Councell of Lateran, wherein sate two Patriarchs, and [Page 67]the Pope, 70. Metropolitans, 400. Bishops, 800 Conven­tuall Priors, all learned men, out of the most parts of Christendome? Shall one Apostate Paulo Dolce his word be taken concerning the Councell of Trent, and preferred to the testimony of all the Catholick Churches, which hath accepted all its Decrees in matters of Faith? I speake not of other Councells, nor of the cleare testimonies of Fathers, which are obvious to all persons who understand Latin, in Bellarmine, Coccius, and other Authors.

5 Most of all I admire to see any person stick to the Common prayer Booke, or to that Church, as if it were the true Catholick. How is it possible, that God should permit the publick exercise of Catholick Religion, and Church, to be brought so low, and to so narrow a compasse, as we see the Common prayer? If Antichrist reigne were come, or the Turke had possessed the whole world, then it might be thought, that the Church fled to the wilder­nesse, and became almost invisible; but when (through the mercy of God) we see Christianity flourish, not onely in Europe, but in all other parts of the world, how is it cre­dible, that God should permit the true, and pure exercise of Catholick Religion to be invisible?

6 Therefore I judge it a duty of conscience, and chari­ty, to warne all Protestants, that they may be pleased to reflect upon the Authors, and first Apostles of their Refor­mation Is it credible that God would make choice of such wicked persons as they were knowne to be, to reform his Church? Suppose there were some abuses in the Court of Rome; must therefore the Popes authority be tread un­der foot? Must Kings loose their Crownes, because some Courtiours are lewd? If Luther had beene appointed to preach for Indulgences, he had never writ against them, the Pope, or the Church of Rome. If Henry the VIII. had prevailed with the Pope to declare null his mariage with Queene Catharine of Spaine, he had never made himselfe spirituall Head of the Church of England. If Calvin had obtained the Bishoprick of Geneva, Puritans had never beene so fierce against Episcopacy. If Queene Elizabeth had not beene declared illegitimate by the Doctrine, and Church of Rome, the Common prayer, and Reformation had ended with Edward the VI. who begunne it. Doth not the world see, that these pretended Reformations of Reli­gion [Page 68]were onely pretexts for Princes to obtaine their po­litick ends; and for dissolute, and incontinent Clergy, to gaine authority, whereby their liberty, and vices might not onely be excused, but applauded by the ignorant, and common people. Let Protestants therefore examine how things past, because ignorance in so important a matter can not be warranted by relying upon other mens judge­ments, seeing they may so easily informe their owne.

7 Neither ought they to sooth themselves with that no lesse usuall, then groundlesse excuse. Agree you Clergy men amongst your selves, and we will agree, & submit our judgements &c. But untill then, we are not obliged, see­ing our Ministers are learned, and honest men. We Ca­tholicks declare to all the world, and the same must Prote­stant do, that the Church out of which there is no salva­tion, may be so easily discerned from all false Sects, by signes so visible and obvious to all persons though illite­rate, that to trust to Ministers testimony in so important a matter, is damnable negligence; especially seeing we charge them of not believing Clergy men, nor ordained. As for the Protestant Ministers being learned, and honest men, its certaine that either we, or they want learning, or honesty, and that either they, or we impose upon the people manifest falshoods; which may easily be discove­red by any person, that desires to be saved. Let our Do­ctrines, and Tenets be examined, and it will clearly ap­peare, that the Protestant Faith doth tend to liberty of be­lieving, and doing what every man thinkes convenient; which is an infallible marke of Heresie, and damnation.

CHAP. XIV. VVhether Protestancy be manifestly against rea­son, and common sense? and how may the most learned Protestants be convinced in dispu­tes of Religion by every illiterate Roman Catholick?

CHAP. XV. Of the difference between Christian Faith, and the historicall beliefe of Protestants.

THat supernaturall Faith is a speciall gift of God, is granted even by Protestants themselves. The super­uaturality [Page 84]of it consists not in believing an extravagant, and improbable object; because that may be done naturally. For there is nothing however so false, and improbable to the understanding, that will not at length be believed by men, if constantly reported to them by others of whom they have a good opinion, and not contradicted by any whose testimony they value. The Turks believe that Ma­homet was a great Prophet, and Saint The Jews believe that the Messias is not yet come. The Puritans believe that every one of themselves is inspired with a Divine spirit &c. And though every one of these stories be false, improba­ble, and also contradicted by Catholicks, yet because these Sectaries have a good opinion of their owne Congrega­tion, and a very bad one of us, Catholicks, they believe the first, reject, and contemne the second. Turks, Jews, and Pu­ritans do not believe these fond articles of their own Reli­gion with any supernaturall Faith; their beliefe is meerly historical, just as children believe the history of the Knight in the Sunne, Don Quixote de la Manche &c.

All Christians have not supernaturall, and Christian Faith. Many who received it in their Baptisme, loose it by heresie. Hereticks are called Christians, because they are baptized, and not because they are endued with Christian beliefe. They believe some mysteries of Christian Reli­gion, but with a meere historicall Faith They assent to the mysteries of the Trinity, and Incarnation, not because God revealed them, but because they are pleased to judge it ve­ry probable, or certain, that God revealed some such thing. That their owne fancy, or opinion, and not Gods Revela­tion, doth move Protestants to believe what they do be­lieve of Christian Religion, is evident; because they choose to themselves amongst all articles, which the Catholick Roman Church proposed to the first Authors of Protestā ­cy Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, &c. before the pretended Re­formation, what they think fit, and most probable. All the rest (though equally proposed to them by the testimony of the said Roman Church, as Divine Revelation) they re­ject as fabulous, or apocryphall, because it suites not with their liberty, fancy, and manners.

Hence it is that all Hereticks are damned by their owne proper judgement, and opinion; for he that makes choice of some articles, and rejects others, when all are equally te­stified [Page 85]to be revealed by God, doth not believe the very ar­ticles he chooseth because God revealed them, but becau­se he is of opinion that God revealed them, and not the o­thers which he rejects; not regarding the testimony of the Church proposing all equally as revealed A Jew believes that the Messias is not come, because he thinks God revea­led Christ not to be the Messias, and yet his Faith is not su­pernaturall. Protestants therefore may believe what they please, because they think God revealed it, and yet their Faith be neither Christian, nor supernaturall: their owne persuasion alone, is not sufficient [...] supernaturalize their beliefe. The difference between historicall, and Christian, or supernaturall beliefe, is not, that Christian beliefe alone hath for its object, supernaturall mysteries; (a man may be­lieve the mystery of the Trinity, or Incarnation with as hi­storicall a beliefe, as the history of Iulius Cesar.) The diffe­rence consists in this, that the understanding doth meet with so great, and manifest difficulties, in crediting what is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation, to be really re­vealed, and true, that it may appear to any indifferent, and rationall man, God doth concurre more particularly to the assent of what is proposed as Christian Faith, then he doth to the assent we give stories, Chronicles or any other hu­man history, though containing never so strange and extra­ordinary events. To believe not onely strange, and (to the sense of man) improbable things, but also to believe them with a prudent beliefe (not out of ignorance, or misinfor­mation) without the least doubt, or suspicion of falshood, is so much above the way, and faculty of nature, that the Faith whereby this is done, must of necessity be an extraor­dinary, and supernaturall gift of Gods omnipotency.

Now let us examine, whether Protestants do so straine their understanding by their beliefe (even of supernaturall mysteries) that it may be evidently called an extraordinary gift of Gods omnipotency? To be brief, I do say, that Pro­testants have no more supernaturall Faith in believing the Trinity, or Incarnation, &c then in believing any strange, or extraordinary accident that Iohn Stow recounts in his Chronicles: and consequently, their Faith is meerly histo­ricall. My reason is this: Protestants believe as articles of Faith onely those points wherein all Christian, though he­reticall Churches agree to be clearly contained in Scriptu­re, [Page 86]or to be delivered by Tradition of the said Churches. Whatsoever is controverted amongst Christians, they look upon it as not necessary to be believed. Its true most of them tell you, they believe the Apostles Creed; others co­me as far as Saint Athanasius his Symbol; some are pleased to admit of the 4. first generall Councells. The motive of this their beliefe is not, because the true Catholick Church testifieth that God revealed what they believe, but because no Christian Church, or Sect, wherewith they converse, [...]oth contradict any of these points. Such things as are contra­dicted, or controverted by any, are not believed as articles of Faith If this be not meerly historicall, and human belief, there is none at all. What man is there, whether Turck, or Jew, that doth not believe after this manner, whatsoever is reported by many, and condicted by none whose authority hath any weight in his opinion? The reason why Turcks stick to their Alcoran, and the Jews to the Law of Moyses, notwithstanding all our contradictions, and testimonies, of the one being wicked, and the other abolished, is, that they have a prejudice against us Christians, they value not any thing we say in matters of Faith If Protestants had not the same prejudice, by their education, against Turcks, that Turcks have against Christians, they would make the Ca­tholick Church yet more universall then at the present they do: the Alcoran perhaps should be part of the Bible; those onely should be articles of Faith wherein both agree; not onely all Hereticks, but Turcks should be members, and part of the Catholick Church.

Many are of opinion, that the liberty of life which Pro­testants have (warrante by their new Religion) is the strongest motive of their obstinacy in it, and of propaga­ting the same. Though this be true in some persons, it can not be applyed to all Protestants: some of them (give the Devil his due) have morality, and come near the old Pagan Philosophers in their life, and conversation. But there is not one amongst all the Protestants of the world, especially of the English Church, or Common prayer men, that is not inveagled, and carried away with a liberty of believing onely that, as an article of Faith, which is not contradicted by any Christian Congregation, or Church, however so different from his owne. Why should Papists (saith every Protestant) impose unnecessary articles of Faith upon us? [Page 87]why should any one be obliged to believe what is not clear in Scripture? There is no liberty more earnestly sought after, then that of the understanding; all men are naturally taken with it; no captivity is more troublesome then that of proper judgement: its impossible, without a supernaturall favour, and grace of God, to b [...]dle the in­clination, and ordinary course of that faculty, which of its own nature is so curious, and vehement that it can not be quiet untill it knowes the reason of what we heare. To believe, is to captivate and confine the understanding to a dungeon of darknesse Not to believe, is to leave it at its own choice, and liberty; this last is naturall, and agreable to our inclination, and by consequence is no proper effect of a supernaturall power. Its impossible therefore that it should be Christian Faith, or a supernaturall gift of God. In this sense the way of heaven is straight, because Chri­stian, and not historicall beliefe, is the foundation, or first step to salvation: we must force our selves to it by strain­ing our understanding to believe, and not give it liberty to accept, and reject what we please, making our selves Judges of all Controversies concerning Scripture, and Christian Religion. Let the negative articles of Prote­stancy be examined (as Protestants, they have no affirma­tive) and we shall finde that nature, and not grace, leads them to that liberty which they assume to themselves of shaking off not onely the yoke of interior acquiescence, and exterior obedience to the decrees, & definitions of the Catholick Roman Church; but also it will manifestly ap­pear, that Protestants, and all men are solicited by a natu­rall propension to make our selves Scripture (as our sel­ves shall interpret it) or (which is the same) the Rule, or Judge of Controversies. Therefore its no supernaturall action, nor no meritorious act, to believe after this man­ner, as Protestants do: for men have no difficulty in be­lieving themselves; and they believe themselves, not God, when their own interpretation of Scripture is followed against that of the Church.

It remaines now a reason be given, Why do Protestants believe the most obscure, and difficult mysteries of Chri­stian Religion, if their Faith be meerly historicall? How can they without a supernaturall power, and favour, belie­ve that the Scripture is Gods Word, the Trinity, the my­stery [Page 88]of Incarnation, &c.? To this doubt I answer, that (as I said in the beginning of this Chapter) there is no diffi­culty in believing the most improbable, and extravagant things, when they are told us by persons we credit, and are not contradicted by any whose testimony we value. In matters of Religion Protestants value no men but Chri­stians, and such mysteries as they believe, are not contra­dicted by any Christians, at least in our parts of the world. They believe therefore all they believe, because they have been told so by their Parents, and others who had the charge of instructing them; and not because God revealed it, which is the onely motive of Christian, and supernatu­rall Faith.

Its a received principle, that he who denyes one article of Christian Religion, believes none at all. It can not be said that he believes none with historicall beliefe, as Pro­testants believe the mystery of the Trinity, Incarnation, and Scripture to be Gods Word. The meaning of all Di­vines is, that he who denyes one article of Faith, believes none at all with Christian, or supernaturall beliefe. This is most true; for, to believe like a Christian, is to believe the mysteries of Christian Religion, because they are suffi­ciently proposed as Divine Revelation by the testimony of the Church; not of every Church, but of the true Ca­tholick one, which onely giveth lawfull authority, and sends Preachers, and Doctors to instruct the people. God hath not promised his helpe, and supernaturall inspi [...]a­tions (which are necessary to believe with Christian Faith) to them who are unsent, uncalled, unconsecrated, but onely to such lawfull Ministers as are appointed, and ordained by them who derive their Doctrine and succes­sion from the Apostles through a never interrupted line. That no Church but the Roman Catholick doth propose sufficiently as Divine Revelation the Doctrine which they preach, hath been proved in the 8. Chapt. whence it fol­loweth, that out of the Roman Catholick Church there can be no true Faith, nor salvation; and that to deny one article of Faith in the least matter, is to deny all; because the motive of our beliefe is denyed as much in a little matter, as in the greatest. See the 7. Chap. The motive being denyed, or rejected; nothing can be believed with Christian Faith, because of the motive depends all. An in­fallible [Page 89]argument of denying the motive of Christian Faith is, to contemne the testimony of that Congregation of men which hath the signes of being the true Catholick Church, as a legall, and orderly succession of Doctors, and Doctrine, conversion of Nations, Miracles, and markes of so eminent, and extraordinary sanctity of life, that the li­ke was never found in Heathen Philosophers, but farre ex­ceeds all that hath beene discovered in any that wanted su­purnaturall grace, as is the entire renunciation of all the worldly pleasure, profit, and honour; an inflamed af­fection towards God, and his glory, with an unfatigable zeale of the salvation of soules, and desire of suffering for Christs sake, whereof we Catholicks alone have an in­finite number of undeniable examples. No other but the Roman Church can as much as pretend to have the signes of the true Church, as miracles remarkable either in num­ber, or quality, &c. Therefore whosoever denyes one ar­ticle of the Roman Religion, denyth also the motive of Catholick Faith, which (as we have proved) is proposed onely by the testimony of the Roman Catholick Church; and consequently he who doth not stick to it, believes nothing at all with Christian, and supernaturall Faith. The very Devils, and damned soules have the Protestant, or hi­storicall beliefe. God, who is Author of all graces, and favours, both naturall, and supernaturall, grant to all Pro­testants that pretious gift of Faith, without which it is im­possible to please His Divine Majesty, or to obtaine the end whereunto we were all created.